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 Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Pleae explain the results of the experiment then.

You can pick from the two possible scenarios

1. Information travel through time to affect past results.

2. Reality manifests itself when it is observed.

Do you acknowledge these only 2 possible scenarios?




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: HotMale
No. That question was answered before you asked it in this post, and I didn't even have to travel back in time to do it (or did I?):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you are not able to recognise the 2 only possible scenarios describing the results in his experiment, could you then, in your own words tell me what the third scenario is, in this experiment, without having to resort to off topic YT vids that don't apply.

In you own words please. What is causing the seemingly barriers of time defying result?

Surprise me, plus that scientist that did the freakin experiment.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.


Or,


"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence," he said.



If you don't see that these are the 2 possible scenarios then you are not getting it.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a question for anyone who actually has an answer: would the gist of this be that reality is noncoherent until observed?

Imagine having a television. When you look at it you see the picture. But when you turn away the picture fades away into static, the various colors in the image smear/blur in a way that is almost like the entire series of frames that make up whats on the TV was being shown in a single image.

non-coherence vs coherence.

Is that the gist here?

not only would I say that's right, but it's a fantastic
explanation of Quantum mechanics.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you are not able to recognise the 2 only possible scenarios describing the results in his experiment, could you then, in your own words tell me what the third scenario is, in this experiment, without having to resort to off topic YT vids that don't apply.

In you own words please. What is causing the seemingly barriers of time defying result?

Surprise me, plus that scientist that did the freakin experiment.
It's not off topic. It's precisely on topic and I didn't just post the video, I posted an explanation. The answer is, nobody knows what causes the quantum mechanical observations we make, that is the whole point of the video. But one of the possible solutions is what's already explained in that post by a physicist, better than I can explain it, the Everett interpretation. It says that different realities exist before we observe them. I don't know if it's right or wrong, nobody does, but it's another possibility to the alternatives you mentioned, which can explain observations if correct.
edit on 7-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




It says that different realities exist before we observe them.


And there I thought Sliders was just a series.



So first you say this,




I see two things expanding: 1. Space 2. The heads of people who think the universe wouldn't exist without their consciousness.


Is what you suggest more level headed? You ridicule one notion and act like your explanation is more sane.

Anyway it is off topic because it just doesn't apply to this specific experiment its parameters and its results.

If it does please show me how it can cause, or even relate to the result of this particular experiment.


You are talking about a general interpretation of Quantum Theory. I am talking about a description of this experiment's results and the inescapable conclusion.

I am being specific.

You are hiding behind generalisations to obscure the fact that you have no clue and suffer from paradigm bias making you miss that what's laughing you in the face.


edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
Is what you suggest more level headed? You ridicule one notion and act like your explanation is more sane.
I didn't provide an explanation of results, I cited a physicist (who wrote a paper on this topic) saying we don't know the underlying reality of quantum mechanics observations.


Anyway it is off topic because it just doesn't apply to this specific experiment its parameters and its results.

If it does please show me how it can cause, or even relate to the result of this particular experiment.
The experiment just confirms our existing models of quantum mechanics as explained in the OP article:


"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
If the Everett interpretation is correct, it says that not only does reality exist before the measurement is made, that there's more than one. You just don't know which one you're in until you make the measurement, but they do exist already according to Everett.


The results confirm the validity of quantum theory,
This is why the Sean Carroll video is on topic, it's talking about how to interpret quantum theory and the OP experiment is just an expected phenomenon resulting from existing quantum theory, so it doesn't change anything discussed in the Sean Carroll video.

You seem to think this experiment is ground-breaking or something, but it's not, it just confirms the validity of quantum theory as the article says. The problem is that some scientists don't consider all the other possible interpretations of quantum mechanics because as Sean Carroll explains, they don't really think about it that much, or at least that's his guess. But there are other interpretations besides Copenhagen, and we don't know which interpretation is correct. Sean Carroll does make a case for why he thinks the Copenhagen interpretation is probably wrong, but aside from that he doesn't claim to know which interpretation is correct either. As some of the statements in the OP article are based on Copenhagen interpretation, I'd say that's relevant.

edit on 7-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




I didn't provide an explanation of results, I cited a physicist (who wrote a paper on this topic) saying we don't know the underlying reality of quantum mechanics observations.


Exactly, that's why it was off topic, at least with regards to my request.

The result of the experiment is that these two scenarios are logically the only two possible ones. If you don't get that you don't get the experiment and probably QP as a whole.




If the Everett interpretation is correct, it says that not only does reality exist before the measurement is made, that there's more than one. You just down't know which one you're in until you make the measurement, but they do exist already according to Everett.


Again, it's a theory, I am talking about experiimental results.

The outcome always correlates with the measurement result, this is because the outcome manifests itself based on the measurement result. Either that or information travels through time affecting past results.

Saying there are mutliple pre existing material realities has no bearing on the result of these experiments nor does it even describe what we see happening here.

Also, I don't see how that notion would be any less "ridiculous" or mindboggling, only the experiment doesn't indicate or point towards such a thing at all.

Anyways, i always find it amusing/annoying how materialists can act like they have a clue and everything is neat and explained while quoting unproven theories and interpretations feeling content with seeing their "predictions" being confirmed as if it explains anything.

Head in sand much.




This is why the video is on topic, it's talking about how to interpret quantum theory and the OP experiment is just an expected phenomenon resulting from existing quantum theory,


Yes it is predictable and predictable means "safe" for paradigm stuck materialists. Unfortunately predictable doesn't mean it is explained.




You seem to think this experiment is ground-breaking or something, but it's not, it just confirms the validity of quantum theory as the article says.


What is groundbreaking is that this is the first time that I see the actual experimenter drawing the inescapable conclusion, one I have been pointing out for almost a decade, based on prior Delayed Quantum eraser experiments.









edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



That could be the point, maybe what we are seeing is a projection of sorts.

That being the case, so what?
Relativity says that everything that is, has, and will happen already did (and is, and will be). So what? What are you going to do about it if you think that's true, or if you think what we are seeing is a projection of sorts? Live your life differently? Einstein says you can't.


Exactly.... and is exactly what I've tried to get across unsuccessfully throughout this thread.

It appears though that what have been proven already is of no consequence to many... who instead come up with some other way to explain away apparent existence.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
To be clear, I am not saying the universe does not exist without humans. I ma saying that the material world is a construct governed by a program, and this and everything in it, including us humans, is a fabrication of consciousness.

Consciousness is the reality, matter is its dream.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
To be clear, I am not saying the universe does not exist without humans. I ma saying that the material world is a construct governed by a program, and this and everything in it, including us humans, is a fabrication of consciousness.

Consciousness is the reality, matter is its dream.
Are you referring to the consciousness of Zog?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not sure what you mean but you still seem to want to ridicule.

You don't even realize that your "multiple realities" theory, suggested by you in relation to this experiment, just like the two other suggested scenarios, proves the influence of the experimenter's consciousness on atomic particles.

It's also hilarious that you think you know better than the actual scientist who did the experiment, especially since you keep posting in such a way that it shows you have no clue, besides the general interpretations you read about.
edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
HotMale:

Experiments like these do prove that reality is not there when there is no consciousness to look at a particular part of it.


Utter nonsense! The behaviour of quanta does not transpose to the everyday reality of our macro world. All macro-world objects that we perceive with our senses are there, and will still be there when our senses are no longer present.

The cliché of the the tree falling in a forest with no one present...does it still make a sound? Of course it does! All the required elements are in play for a sound to be created. It is irrelevant whether a pair of ears are present or not to hear the resulting fall of the tree, because sound isn't created by our ears, it is detected by them!

According to your way of thinking, the sun, the moon, and all other celestial objects beyond our planet don't exist when there is no consciousness, but seeing that conscious life forms did not bloom forth on this planet until billions of years after the planet formed, how do you account for that? Consciousness does not create the things we perceive! Consciousness is itself a by-product of perceiving. The energy of the stimulation helps to place the whole body into a state of consciousness...it is just a passive condition. Consciousness does not emit an energy, but is itself an indicator of a raised energy state in the body.

Posters need to get away from these absurd notions that macro-reality doesn't exist without the presence of consciousness...it is despairing to know that so-called educated people entertain these silly ideas!



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but, my question is how can a human being make a determination of "something" that can never be known?....this to me is bordering on the "faith" factor in religion



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire





Utter nonsense!


And yet you are not even able to acknowledge, let alone explain the results of experiments like these.

Results that completely destroy your materialistic view.

I rest my case.




All macro-world objects that we perceive with our senses are there, and will still be there when our senses are no longer present.


You do agree that matter is built up out of atoms right? This experiment is done with atoms so tell me how that does not relate to the macroscopic world?

Repating that the material world is persistent doesn't make it solid.....

You can't even prove that anything exists beyond our perception.
edit on 7-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

And a partner of mine and I used to laugh about starting a measuring
company. We'd just go around measuring stuff with our tape measures
and charge people a flat rate. Stupid bit of fun for the young, dumb,
full of beer in So Cal. but, we sure never dreamed of measuring reality.
We could prolly charge twice as much



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire




The cliché of the the tree falling in a forest with no one present...does it still make a sound? Of course it does! All the required elements are in play for a sound to be created. It is irrelevant whether a pair of ears are present or not to hear the resulting fall of the tree, because sound isn't created by our ears, it is detected by them!


No, ours ears detect air vibrations and our brains translate it into sound. According to the rules of the material world.

There is just no point to render a piece of forest that is not being observed by a user.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: neoholographic

And a partner of mine and I used to laugh about starting a measuring
company. We'd just go around measuring stuff with our tape measures
and charge people a flat rate. Stupid bit of fun for the young, dumb,
full of beer in So Cal. but, we sure never dreamed of measuring reality.
We could prolly charge twice as much


being from northern California, you might want to start measuring SoCal's water usage, seeing the political powers that be, want to suck all the fresh water they can from the storage teats of the north....just a not-too-friendly jab.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire




According to your way of thinking, the sun, the moon, and all other celestial objects beyond our planet don't exist when there is no consciousness, but seeing that conscious life forms did not bloom forth on this planet until billions of years after the planet formed, how do you account for that?


In a discussion about reality being like a computer simulation this is an argument that is easily overcome.

Any feature of such a reality like the results of geological processes would be.....simulated.

The concept of time would be simulated.




Consciousness does not create the things we perceive!


Not directly, no.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join