It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Mysticism and the Founders of Quantum Mechanics

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   


Here they speak of the infinate nature of the atom.




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity




Maybe its the same particle. The left and rightness, are gained from our point of observation. Just as looking down on the earth from the South pole would seem to have an opposite spin than gazing down from the North pole.


I don't think this applies with the apparatus they use to determine spin, plus the fact that entangled partners are observed as existing, and manipulated at different points in space from each other.




The fact that particles don't need the same timeline to be entangled suggest that they are timed relative to our observation. Which if the communication of entangled particles is instant, either their is no distance between them, for this to happen, therefore no time, or they would either have to be the same particle. But not answering to the three dimensions, make them ex dimensional. The conclusion being that its the observer who has observed these states and interpreted them as the reality.


The measurements of both partners are only meaningful if they are put into perspective(of each other), meaning that a conscious observer has to correlate them. I don't think the partners communicate instantaniously, or at all. It is just reality making sure it corresponds to the observer's parameters, using the consciousness of the oberver to make the correct correlation, making it appear like there was FTL communications between entangled partners, when in reality the result at Bob only materialised when the state at Alice at any particular moment, became known.

I hope that makes sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SkippyBalls

Thanks. Not a lot makes sense with quantum physics.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

No, not really, but I do find that consciousness does at least party explain what the unseen mechanism is behind these weird results, although it doesn't even begin to explain how this system really works.

I do know that the results of secondairy Quantum measurements always adapt to and correspond with the initial measurement with "information" apparently even crossing the boundaries of space and time as they are known to us.

There has to be a mechanism connecting these outcomes, and when you look at it there is in fact a mechanism connecting them, the conscious observer.
edit on 28-1-2015 by SkippyBalls because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

So of course these things are non physical because you have things like entanglement, non locality, superposition, tunneling and teleportation. These are not thins you associate with materialism or a an objective physical reality.


Sure you can!

Why can't superposition, nonlocality and entanglement be associated with an objective physical reality? Just assertion? Just "I don't understand it/It feels wrong" so it must be woo-nonmaterialism, putting every idea of "don't understand" into an unclear mystic soup, because I haven't heard any precise and useful theory of non-materialistic physics.

Everything is predicted entirely from the Heisenberg equations of motion. All these quantum mechanical experiments have outcomes which are precisely calculatable and verifiable with experimental results, just like Newtonian mechanics.

QM is a theory of wavefunctions in Hilbert spaces, not particles, and it is not intuitive, and it works.

Sadly, Materialism has become an ism of faith, dogma and absurdity.


Stop with the dogma crap. Show me evidence.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

ori
There has to be a mechanism connecting these outcomes, and when you look at it there is in fact a mechanism connecting them, the conscious observer.


It works just fine with a robot taking data too. Is a particle counter 'conscious'?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




It works just fine with a robot taking data too. Is a particle counter 'conscious'?


And there's another one.

Who do you think the robot works for? Yes a particle counter is an extention of human consciousness the minute its results are read by the experimenter.

It is a very simple notion yet I watched intelligent and educated people struggle with it for years.

No it doesn't work with a robot taking data, cause if you just let the robot take data and don't read the data you have nothing. No experiment, no results, no Quantum weirdness.

Is it that hard to grasp?
edit on 28-1-2015 by SkippyBalls because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




Stop with the dogma crap. Show me evidence.


Look at any Quantum Eraser experiment for instance. The availability of measurement info is causing the collapse of the wave function, not the physical act of measuring itself. This can only mean one thing.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: mbkennel




It works just fine with a robot taking data too. Is a particle counter 'conscious'?


And there's another one.

Who do you think the robot works for? Yes a particle counter is an extention of human consciousness the minute its results are read by the experimenter.

It is a very simple notion yet I watched intelligent and educated people struggle with it for years.

No it doesn't work with a robot taking data, cause if you just let the robot take data and don't read the data you have nothing. No experiment, no results, no Quantum weirdness.

Is it that hard to grasp?


Is it a fact that the bigger a thing is the more easily it is to predict the most probable outcome.? Then taking the probability wave heading for a slit, the outcome is uncertain because, the outcome is beyond the linear time wave front. That is, it is in the future. We cant predict the future until it happens, only then is it certain. Which seems to imply in this instance, until the future is past, you can only ever predict uncertainty.

If this is the case, then the linear time wave front, loses its uncertainty when a conscious entity is involved, and can alter the outcome. Is this because the state of the photons probability wave is in the same dimension as consciousness, and is entangled?.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


What??

It's no surprise you didn't respond to what I said because QM shatters materialism. This is why I quoted the Scientist up above from the paper that's titled:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

This is very important because QM has a physical interpretation but it has no objective physical reality. A physical interpretation is what you see with information and you have some Scientist saying everything is information and information is more fundamental than matter.

Here's a good website that explains these things and it illustrates the math with graphs and it's easy to grasp for people who may not have studied these things. It says:


The wave function, at a particular time, contains all the information that anybody at that time can have about the particle. But the wave function itself has no physical interpretation. It is not measurable. However, the square of the absolute value of the wave function has a physical interpretation. We interpret |ψ(x,t)|2 as a probability density, a probability per unit length of finding the particle at a time t at position x.


electron6.phys.utk.edu...

Very important point and ties to the paper I listed above. What the paper is saying is that the wave function does have a physical interpretation yet it's non physical. This is because it's saying information can be transmitted from point A to point B without the transmission of a particle. This occurs deterministically according to the measurement that occurred.

QM doesn't support an objective physical reality. QM tells us that the wave function contains information about these states but an observer interacts with these measured states and the observers knowledge of these measured states plays a huge role as well. This is why Schrodinger whose called the father of QM said this:


The observer is never entirely replaced by instruments; for if he were, he could obviously obtain no knowledge whatsoever.... Many helpful devices can facilitate this work...But they must be read! The observer’s senses have to step in eventually. The most careful record, when not inspected, tells us nothing.


Again, the wave function tells us how the system evolves and there's evolution of the wave function without a measurement(Brahman) and the observable that's seen as "local reality" (Atman). Here's more from the page:


The Schroedinger equation describes this evolution. Measurements at a later time provide new information, and therefore the state of the system, in general, changes after the measurements. The wave function of the system, in general, changes after a measurement.


So, you can't have reality without conscious observers measuring and obtaining knowledge about the system. Without the initial conditions that occur because of measurement, you wouldn't have any reality outside of a non physical wave function. So consciousness and the system (wave function) are intertwined. Again, it's Brahman and Atman.

So the quantum state is measured and observed by local observers and the wave function then begins to evolve from the initial conditions that were set by that measurement.

So the wave function gives us information about the probable states the system can be in. These states only have meaning when a conscious observer makes a measurement and knows which path information. A conscious observer can even choose which observable he/she wants to measure thereby determining how the wave function will evolve based on the initial conditions chosen by the conscious observer. This is why you have experiments like the delayed choice or quantum eraser delayed choice.

Without the conscious observer having knowledge about the system, how or why does the measurement occur?

So a conscious observer can choose to measure position, momentum or angular momentum and these things don't exist until he/she chooses to make a measurement. There probable states the system can be in if I choose to make a measurement.

It's like if I go to the store, buying and eating a bag of Doritos or a bag of Sour Cream chips are two probable states. They don't become measured states until I choose to buy a bag of Doritos or a bag of Sour cream chips.

It's the same with QM, my choice of measurement determines how the wave function will evolve after a measurement occurs. This is why you have probabilities and how the wave function will evolve can't be determined until after measurement just like how things will evolve isn't determined until I buy a bag of Doritos or buy a bag of Sour Cream chips.

I can choose to buy a bag of Doritos and then go get a tea I like to have with my Doritos and then I bump into a high school friend. If I choose to buy Sour Cream chips, I go straight to the cash register and I never bump into my high school friend. So my choice determines how reality unfolds.

It's the same with QM. Your choice on which observable you choose to measure determines how the wave function will evolve after that measurement.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity




Is it a fact that the bigger a thing is the more easily it is to predict the most probable outcome.?


I am not sure what you mean by "thing" and "bigger".




Then taking the probability wave heading for a slit


In slit type experiments they fire one single particle at a time. As I understand it there is no probability wave heading for a slit, only a single particle which becomes a wave when it goes through both or all slits when we aren't looking.




the outcome is uncertain because, the outcome is beyond the linear time wave front. That is, it is in the future. We cant predict the future until it happens, only then is it certain. Which seems to imply in this instance, until the future is past, you can only ever predict uncertainty.


Yes, but that is a given.




If this is the case, then the linear time wave front, loses its uncertainty when a conscious entity is involved, and can alter the outcome. Is this because the state of the photons probability wave is in the same dimension as consciousness, and is entangled?.


I don't think there is such a thing as an entangled wave.

The way I see it, reality is governed by a program that makes sure that the perceived reality adds up to what the observer already knows. If the observer has no knowledge of a system all possible outcomes seem to happen.(superposition)

The moment an observer watches what slit a particle goes through, all other outcomes become impossible because the observer knows which slit it went through, so it couldn't have gone through others, and there is no longer a wave of probability.




edit on 29-1-2015 by SkippyBalls because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SkippyBalls

Everything Human and Animals upon this Earth perceive, with the common senses, is the result of an internal representation, specific to the Brain.

The fact that we can make determinations with it does in and of itself say nothing. As to its potential as an exact representation of what exist outside of what our Five senses can perceive.

Again the very idea that randomness can be acknowledged, in respect to large scale structures?

By it very implication offers in Chaos Theory that you may actually be wasting your time.

You see nothing is random in nature and even in respect to QM, given Chaos theory that is very likely the case.

Any thoughts?



edit on 29-1-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SkippyBalls

What I meant was, that at the quantum level, the outcome has more probability. The larger the mass, although its composed of many of the same particles, its behaviour it seems is more predictable, in the established reality.

Its almost as if that one, of infinite potential futures, all are probable, until it hits the present, or our (times linear wave front). So that all the potential futures exist, but its only the one that hits the wave front, that becomes our present reality. Which can suggest that, these infinite probable futures exist, outside of our linear timeline. Which is where all the superimpositions exist. But the one we experience, is based on the quantity of mass already perceived, which stabilises the reality. So any change with regards to anomalies can only leach in from the wave front, of potential futures. So if for instance we see a UFO. that's leached in, along with ghosts, EVP's. etc. They have got to be accepted by the observer as a real probability, to enter as a reality. But in a Dreamscape, we can jump around a few of the many probable possibilities. Which suggests that in the dreamscape you are out of linear time.

More kicking the idea, around that, real life only seems real because it has a wave front. That has a linear time line, to deliver a future and a past to establish it. But it seems more to do with consciousness than anything hard and fast.
edit on 29-1-2015 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkippyBalls
a reply to: mbkennel




It works just fine with a robot taking data too. Is a particle counter 'conscious'?


And there's another one.

Who do you think the robot works for? Yes a particle counter is an extention of human consciousness the minute its results are read by the experimenter.


So, if two building custodians who don't know quantum mechanics take the readings, are they also "NOT" making measurements until their pieces of paper are brought forth before the physicist to do computations?

Are they equally unconscious and still in an unpopped quantum state because the Physicist Who Determines Wavefunctions hasn't yet done the correlation computation ?

What's the difference between them and the robot particle counter? What about gorillas? Do dolphins count? Baboons? Elephants? Maybe once you go below lemur then they don't count as 'conscious observer' and just become 'apparatus'? Who counts as the magic consciousness who changes outcomes?




It is a very simple notion yet I watched intelligent and educated people struggle with it for years.


Rightfully because it's nonsense. Schroedingers' famous cat is not intended to be sensible, it is Schroedinger mocking people who take this idea of consciousness having some relationship to physical outcomes too seriously.



No it doesn't work with a robot taking data, cause if you just let the robot take data and don't read the data you have nothing. No experiment, no results, no Quantum weirdness.


baloney.

About the supposedly mystical quantum eraser: arxiv.org...



The delayed choice experiments are a collection of experiments where the counterintuitive laws of quantum mechanics are manifested in a very striking way. Although the delayed choice experiments can be very accurately described with the standard framework of quantum optics, a more didactical and intuitive explanation seems not to have been given so far. In this note, we fill that gap.


Read the paper. Everything proceeds with orthodox quantum mechanics when analyzed correctly. No quantum woo needed.


Is it that hard to grasp?


Yes, because it is nonsense.
edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel


What??

It's no surprise you didn't respond to what I said because QM shatters materialism. This is why I quoted the Scientist up above from the paper that's titled:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


I read that very paper. As I repeat: the authors are making a technical definition for what they mean by "physicality" which is peculiar to quantum mechanics and their own paper, and not related to anything general 'nonmaterialistic' or relating to consciousness or in any way privileging humans and hoping for supernaturalism (without evidence) which is the underlying motivation behind most of the woo stuff.

Their use of the word is not yours.


This is very important because QM has a physical interpretation but it has no objective physical reality. A physical interpretation is what you see with information and you have some Scientist saying everything is information and information is more fundamental than matter.


What do you mean by 'matter'? Remember that the particle number basis in QM is only one possible basis and bases can be rotated and transformed and you may measure in different bases. Anytime you go to second quantization in QM this is in play, so if you say that 'matter' is single particles which are eternally conserved then I agree, QM is not just about 'matter' in this sense and yes it's different from Newtonian physics.



Here's a good website that explains these things and it illustrates the math with graphs and it's easy to grasp for people who may not have studied these things. It says:


The wave function, at a particular time, contains all the information that anybody at that time can have about the particle. But the wave function itself has no physical interpretation. It is not measurable. However, the square of the absolute value of the wave function has a physical interpretation. We interpret |ψ(x,t)|2 as a probability density, a probability per unit length of finding the particle at a time t at position x.



It's like saying the electric field has no 'physical interpretation' other than the effect it has on charged particles.



electron6.phys.utk.edu...

Very important point and ties to the paper I listed above. What the paper is saying is that the wave function does have a physical interpretation yet it's non physical. This is because it's saying information can be transmitted from point A to point B without the transmission of a particle. This occurs deterministically according to the measurement that occurred.


You mean that particles are outcomes of wavefunctions, and wavefunctions are not outcomes of particles? No argument there, that's just quantum mechanics. What does it mean to be in a state where there are probabilities of different numbers of particles? Strange, but there you go, it's the way the world works.



QM doesn't support an objective physical reality. QM tells us that the wave function contains information about these states but an observer interacts with these measured states and the observers knowledge of these measured states plays a huge role as well. This is why Schrodinger whose called the father of QM said this:


The observer is never entirely replaced by instruments; for if he were, he could obviously obtain no knowledge whatsoever.... Many helpful devices can facilitate this work...But they must be read! The observer’s senses have to step in eventually. The most careful record, when not inspected, tells us nothing.



Nothing, when not inspected, tells humans anything, but that is silly.



Again, the wave function tells us how the system evolves and there's evolution of the wave function without a measurement(Brahman)


How did this 'measurement' happen, in real life, and not abstraction? QM wavefunction interacted with a much larger system of particles, 10^23 or more of them which have nonlinear evolution and which have dissipative dynamics which interact with the wavefunction of the previously isolated particle.





The Schroedinger equation describes this evolution. Measurements at a later time provide new information, and therefore the state of the system, in general, changes after the measurements. The wave function of the system, in general, changes after a measurement.


So, you can't have reality without conscious observers measuring and obtaining knowledge about the system. Without the initial conditions that occur because of measurement, you wouldn't have any reality outside of a non physical wave function.


No. Things are just different after the measurement apparatus has interacted dissipatively with the quantum system, and now thanks to decoherence and all that, it looks like classical physics. It's more familiar but it isn't more or less real than QM system alone.




So consciousness and the system (wave function) are intertwined. Again, it's Brahman and Atman.


Do baboons count or not?



So the quantum state is measured and observed by local observers and the wave function then begins to evolve from the initial conditions that were set by that measurement.


The quantum state is altered and recorded by local experimental apparatus and the wavefunction continues to evolve after the interactions with that experimental apparatus.

edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Wrong on a few levels. Most of your post agrees with what I'm saying.

First, you claim the paper is talking about some technical definition of physicality that's special to QM and that's just a superposition of nonsense. The paper is titled:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

What physicality are you talking about as it pertains to the wave function that's peculiar to quantum mechanics? Sow me the peculiar physical reality that you have conjured up in your mind. The paper talks about the transition of information from point A to point B without the transmission of a particle. So it's not talking about any special or peculiar definition of physicality. You just made this nonsense up in your mind because you have no answer. Even the other Scientist that looked at this said this:

As Salih says: "I believe the question of how information gets from Bob to Alice is a deep one speaking to the heart of the debate about the reality of the quantum state: if physical particles did not carry information between sender and receiver, what did?"

So it has nothing to do with any peculiar definition of physicality that you made up in your mind. It has everything to do with the non physical transmission of information from point A to point B without a particle.

Next you talk about decoherence and again, a lot of people just throw decoherence out there without understanding that decoherence doesn't explain the measurement problem and this is why most Physicist still favor Copenhagen.


In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition.

A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem.


Decoherence shows how the environment can destroy phase relationships of a system in superposition. So when you CHOOSE to measure an observable of a system the wave function "collapses" into a Dirac delta function in the eigenbasis of that observable.

This is why you have different interpretations of QM. Some say no collapse with M.W.I. and others say collapse ala Copenhagen. The fact is, decoherence gives you a mixture of quantum states without phase relationships but you still have a probability distribution and not a measured state. This is because the conscious observer hasn't made a CHOICE.

Choice creates reality. The Observer can choose which observable they want to measure.

Let's go back to the Doritos vs. Sour Cream analogy to illustrate this in layman's terms.

If I go into the store and I'm standing in front of the potato chip rack and the Doritos and Sour Cream chips are next to each other and touching on the top shelf, this would be an example of superposition or both probable states interacting or in phase. If I go into the store and the Doritos are on the top shelf and the Sour Cream chips are on the bottom shelf, then the two probable states have decohered. There a mixture of probabilities but still you have a probability distribution.

A measurement occurs when the Observer CHOOSES to buy Doritos or Sour Cream chips. So Decoherence has nothing to do with the measurement postulate. This is based on the choice of the observer.

Finally, you said.


Do baboons count or not?


Yes and this is why the Founders of QM gravitated towards these views. This is because everything is a conscious expression or Atman of Brahman. The universe itself would be a conscious expression of Brahman.

This runs into things like the Quantum Mind put forth by Penrose and Hameroff which says consciousness originates at Planck Scale geometries. So everything is an entangled quantum state of conscious. They made predictions about quantum vibrations in microtubules that was recently confirmed.



When you look at the double slit experiment, when you shoot a particle through one slit, it behaves like a particle. When you add a second slit it's a wave. What has changed by adding an additional slit? The only thing that has changed is the uncertainty of the conscious observer about which path information.

So the wave function is tied to the knowledge of the observer. The conscious observer then has to make a CHOICE to carry out a measurement to discover which path information.

THERE ISN'T ANY WHICH PATH INFORMATION AVAILABLE UNLESS THE OBSERVER MAKES A CHOICE.

The wave function just continues to evolve according to Schrodinger's equation and Schrodinger himself made this point:

The observer is never entirely replaced by instruments; for if he were, he could obviously obtain no knowledge whatsoever.... Many helpful devices can facilitate this work...But they must be read! The observer’s senses have to step in eventually. The most careful record, when not inspected, tells us nothing.
edit on 30-1-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel

Wrong on a few levels. Most of your post agrees with what I'm saying.

First, you claim the paper is talking about some technical definition of physicality that's special to QM and that's just a superposition of nonsense. The paper is titled:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

What physicality are you talking about as it pertains to the wave function that's peculiar to quantum mechanics? Sow me the peculiar physical reality that you have conjured up in your mind. The paper talks about the transition of information from point A to point B without the transmission of a particle. So it's not talking about any special or peculiar definition of physicality.


Yes it is, it is the "transmission of a particle" business and equating that with "physicality". Consider quantized electromagnetic fields. The free propagation (waves at infinity) correspond in quantum terms to photons. So what are the 'virtual photons' (where no actual transmissions take place) and where did they come from? They come from the 'near field' electromagnetic configurations or evanescent ``waves'''. No particle is 'transmitted' but of course they're very physically important, especially at low frequencies where you care about induction and not radiation, like an electrical transformer.

Underlying it, the particles are one particular configuration of the actual underlying quantum field.

The wavefunction of the quantum fields is what matters and has priority. Instantiation of particles is secondary, not primary.

If consciousness is so important, at what stage in Earth's evolution did wavefunction start to be influenced by consciousness? Cro-Magnon? What about a rat?
edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
you may be interested in this book www.amazon.com...



a reply to: neoholographic



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The fundamental parts of matter do not physically "collapse into particles" from a wave function when they are observed/measured. They do not magically change from a wave function to a "physical ball of stuff" when we observe/measure it. Instead, the "physical ball of stuff" or "particle" definition of these fundamental parts of matter is simply the best way to describe what we get when we observe or measure in the quantum world.

Some people like to say that things in the quantum world act both like a wave and a particle. But this (again) is simply words we use to describe the quantum world -- not necessarily the reality of the quantum world. In reality, things in the quantum world may appear to have traits of both waves and particles, but they are neither waves nor are they particles in the physical sense of the words "wave" and "particle", as we normally use those words.

QM says that matter and energy is something wholly different than waves or particles.



The late, great Richard Feynman once said:

Quantum mechanics is the description of the behavior of
matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the
happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale
behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about.

They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles,
they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs,
or like anything that you have ever seen.





edit on 1/30/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
you may be interested in this book www.amazon.com...
a reply to: neoholographic



The Tao of Physics is bad physics. The recently posted video of quantum information theory is better.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join