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: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
This experimental confirmation of the supposition principle postulated in quantum mechanics has NOTHING to do with the holographic model of the universe. Nor does it mean anything as simplistic as the conclusion that reality does not exist until it is observed. Rather, it means that the classical notion of a unique reality that exists independent of how it is observed fails for quantum objects. That's as far as it goes. All the silly hype that is being reported in science magazines and blogs on the internet should be ignored as hyperbole, misrepresentation and distortion. Macroscopic reality is NOT a quantum system, so stop making the mistake that it can be regarded as such.

Isn't macroscopic reality the product of the quantum system? The result?

Do you see macroscopic reality is existing alongside the quantum, as opposed to it existing as a result thereof?

For example, I see the macro as the product of the micro. It's inseparable. So the physics of quantum matters to me, since it's the parent of everything. Shouldn't it matter what the parent does?

If the parent is XYZ then maybe hte child shares some resemblance.

To my untrained uneducated mind the quantum world is untouchable, unknowable, alien, unreachable, etc. That's scary because much of our civilization is based on what we can know and touch and reach. Here we exist in a reality unaccountable to its ultimate actions.

It's that character of the quantum which makes me squirm.
edit on 4-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Reality doesn't care about what you find distasteful. You're not supposed to eat your own excrement.

I think that reality might consist of many time continuums as in the many worlds theory, but there are many good reasons to cast aside the hidden variable theories and I think it's highly naive to believe in a single deterministic clockwork universe. I've had long debates with people trying to push the clockwork universe theory and I don't want to do it yet again. There are many strong reasons for why I think it's impossible to predict my own future perfectly, regardless of how much information I have about the state of the universe, but that's not the topic of this thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
For example, I see the macro as the product of the micro. It's inseparable.
It depends but in some cases it's possible to observe quantum effects that can't be observed on larger scales. For example, you can perform the double slit experiment on progressively larger items until you reach a macro limit. It's hard to say exactly where this limit is and it may depend on the specifics of the experiment.

We've done the double-slit experiment on a buckyball which is 60 carbon atoms, but I think it's universally agreed that it's impossible to perform the same experiment on a bowling ball and get similar results. So in that example you can't do in the macro world with a bowling ball what you can do in the quantum world with an electron or a buckyball.

That's not to say the quantum effects necessarily vanish with macro objects but they can become impossible to observe.
edit on 4-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The many worlds theory is simply a theory of possibility and numbers. It's another way of saying "the future is not easy for us to pin point". In order to discern possibility, then many different "future worlds" are contemplated. This should not imply at all that there are, in fact, many actual worlds waiting to come to fruition. It is simple to know that, inevitably, what will be, will be.

Is that not also obvious?

Just because one is yet unable to see what will inevitably happen, it does not mean that it won't happen.

Because numbers are the means by which mathematicians attempt to be prophets, it doesn't mean that numbers will ever allow mathematicians to be so. Frankly, it's not possible with numbers alone.

To say that there are other dimensions which we are unable to discern which somehow lend to anomalous observations, that indeed, could be true. But they aren't other worlds, really, in the way we know the word. It is no different than realizing that there is an entire "microscopic" world which we could not see without the microscope.

But this does not mean that our natural understanding of the physical realm is wrong. It means we just need a tool to peer into that dimension.

Hence why I said earlier - Just invent. IT solves the argument much more quickly.

Where to look is implied by the discrepancy within our observation between the beginning and the end of the event.

If you go to the bowling alley and set up a camera at lane number 5 where Bob always bowls at 5pm on Wednesday in an attempt to be able to observe him, then you might find that Bob will switch to lane 15 because he wants his space. So when you turn the camera on, the view you get of him bowling will not be the view which you predicted should have happened. But, you indeed will get a view of Bob rolling the ball. You wouldn't be crazy enough to say, "In a different universe, Bob didn't need his space and my calculations were correct and he would have rolled the ball here, because that is what should have been, I was told this by his niece who knows him pretty darn well." You would say, "I should have set my camera up somewhere else and set up a mirror and used a longer lens - but knowing that what I'm observing is mirrored and is further than it appears needs to be factored into my observation - but that all only if I was supposed to get the result I demanded. Maybe I should go with the result that I received and realized that what was always going to happen just happened?"

Point being, if something is not going right, it's not the fault of reality. Changing reality to meet the discrepancies in the information derived by the observer is wrong.

It doesn't matter how much money they're spending... they're still doing something wrong.

Although, I do feel that I can somewhat relate. I'll be playing playing a song very well, and then my kids will come in, and then all of a sudden I'm not. "Hey! You! You're messing me up!" No, I'm messing up, but little scapegoats are easy targets for frustration that years and years of experience don't necessarily lend to ease of performance in every situation.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Do you think the macro exists alongside the quantum or as a result thereof?

How do they exist with each other? What's their relationship?

I stick to my guns this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. Our home is haunted with a quantum boogeyman. Untouchable. Unknowable.

It's under your bed. You cannot rule it out even when you look and it's not there. You cannot trust what you see.
edit on 4-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I never said that -you- could predict your future perfectly. In fact, you simply can't. But you can make choices that keep on the path that you desire. Just because you can't predict your future perfectly, it doesn't mean that the future isn't there. That is ... yet again ... not logical. As well, just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

But you were always going to think like this. And no matter how many times you attempt to spite it, you were.

Except, and here's a bonus - the future can indeed be manipulated. It just can't be manipulated by that which is within. It can only be manipulated by that which is without. But that which is without can enter in. Here's your mystery.

The time piece can not modify itself, neither does it know for how long it goes. Only who fashions the time-piece is able to decide that.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I wonder if anyone actually bothered to read the article or the journal the information is sourced from.

If I choose to sense energy from a pair of night googles, I'll have a completely different experience than if I sensed them through my bare eyes. If I "choose to believe" certain things then "it's as if" unicorns are flying in the sky, and I can make lots of monies off gullible people.

Seriously, read between the blinders.
edit on 4-6-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Do you think the macro exists alongside the quantum or as a result thereof?

How do they exist with each other? What's their relationship?
I think one of the keys to understanding the answer to this question is something called quantum decoherence


decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

...While decoherence explains why a quantum system begins to obey classical probability rules after interacting with its environment (due to the suppression of the interference terms when applying Born's probability rules to the system), it does not explain what an observation actually is. Thus, it does not explain why the environment is seen to be in one definite state rather than in a superposition of states.
Basically the quantum "weirdness" we see in experiments is often the result of going to great experimental lengths to prevent decoherence and isolate the quantum scale objects being observed. With larger objects, there is no such isolation, and decoherence is rampant.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Korg Trinity


Neither are intuitive to our experience of nature.... What the studies I have been involved in have lead me to believe is that this indicates strongly that Space-Time is a construct of events, that all events exist within the continuum.

So the past and the future already exist, there isn't a sudden change in the past once something has been observed in the present... it was already observed just from our perspective within space-time we do not see the future events.

So you're going with option 1? I find that view even more distasteful than living in a simulation because it implies my entire future is already set in stone. Also that idea doesn't seem to agree with the type of randomness we get from QM, unless you want to believe in a many worlds theory with a huge or infinite number of deterministic time lines. But then if you accept that idea it seems to undermine your original premise that the setup knows what you will do in the future because you could end up on many different future time lines. And I'm pretty sure there are experiments which essentially prove that some type of back loading must be occurring at the moment the measurement is made, although I can't seem to find any info on that right now. Google seems to be utterly hopeless at finding documents relevant to quantum back loading.

Oh I remember the experiments I was thinking of now. It's rather recent research but I'm pretty sure there are older experiments which essentially show that the wave function must have some sort of basis in reality.


Wave function gets real in quantum experiment

Now, Eric Cavalcanti at the University of Sydney and Alessandro Fedrizzi at the University of Queensland, both in Australia, and their colleagues have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger's cat actually is both dead and alive.

"In my opinion, this is the first experiment to place significant bounds on the viability of an epistemic interpretation of the quantum state," says Matthew Leifer at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada.


Also you need to be able to explain how a single particle can travel through two slits at the same time if it's not really a wave. Even if it "knows" whether or not it will be observed that cannot explain why it acts so weird when not observed. It seems to me every bit of evidence we have suggests the wave function is real and that it's actually a probability wave.
edit on 4/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


I never said that -you- could predict your future perfectly. In fact, you simply can't. But you can make choices that keep on the path that you desire.

My "path" would be set in stone in such a universe, there is nothing I can do to change it, and no amount of word play will change that. If we were in a clockwork universe then conceptually it is possible to predict the future with 100% certainty if one were to have enough information about reality. Just because I could never get enough information it doesn't change the fact the future could be predicted if given enough information.


Just because you can't predict your future perfectly, it doesn't mean that the future isn't there.

I'm saying that even if I knew absolutely everything there was to know about the state of the universe at any given moment, I still couldn't predict what would happen next with 100% accuracy because particle behavior is probabilistic, producing truly unpredictable and non-causal events. It is those quantum events which cause the entropy of the universe to increase over time.


edit on 4/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

I'm saying that even if I knew absolutely everything there was to know about the state of the universe at any given moment, I still couldn't predict what would happen next with 100% accuracy because particle behavior is probabilistic, producing truly unpredictable and non-causal events. It is those quantum events which cause the entropy of the universe to increase over time.


Yet for every action there is an exact equal and opposite reaction.. isn't that one of the fundamentals we all lean in physics from an early age?

The same can be said of reality and space-time, that what we see as existing is only a one part of a whole. The quantum foam may be pure chaos but for every value there is an infinite number of alternatives that may be expressed elsewhere.

The fact that Chaos exists doesn't negate the concept of a space-time continuum that encompasses all of space-time both past and future.

The problem is not can I gain enough information from our universe to calculate the future with 100% accuracy... you would also have to know the states of all the possible other universes ad infinitum.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Here's more from Professor Daegene Song


In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."


www.prnewswire.com...




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It's simple. To make "AI" you use what all other lifeforms use..... living tissue. Then you find ways to limit it to perform specific functions.

If it has the intelligence of an ant nobody will complain if it uses living tissue. Only when it approaches our intelligence will there be trouble. Of course, if you dramatically increase our intelligence then maybe nobody will complain. Depends how relative the morality is.
edit on 4-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

No.

The reason why the "wave-function" is derived is because of fuzzy numbers, not fuzzy particles. Mathematics is an abstract universe. IT IS NOT REALITY.

However, the numbers can be useful for vague prediction when you understand the reality first.

Yes, the time-piece has ALL of the information of the time-piece in it. Just because you cannot absorb and process all of it, it does not mean that it is not there. If you could somehow absorb all of that information and process it, then yes, if you were so inclined with your new found power, you could predict everything. But you can't. You didn't create the time-piece. You're within it. The puzzle does not solve itself. The solution is without.

Any apple is made up of its own information. The information of that apple is not changing. It's simply moving through time and following its inevitable process. It was born and will rot.

Particle behavior is NOT probabilistic.

That is blindness and fuzzy math.

It is the current understanding of what energy is that is causing the problem.

Energy itself is not a particle. It is invisible and immaterial. Materials transfer energy. Material is a spaceship for the living. You see TWO DIFFERENT PARTICLES going through the slits. It's not guessing what you're looking at. It's that energy doesn't move without a vessel! If you shoot energy at the same two slits, you will get two or more particles.

There are particles are everywhere. They are not NOT everywhere. You will not find a place where there is no particle. Space must be contained. Particles are not within space. Space is within particles.

This is self-evident.

The Big Bang model assumes that there was an infinitely dense singularity which blew up and expanded.

Something infinite doesn't require expansion. It's the most foolish thought.

That which is infinite is both infinitely dense and also infinitely expansive. It's *gasp* infinite.

Therefore, this universe is NOT infinite. It is literally a finite physical bubble, for that is the only way space can be contained. Just because we keep being able to peel away layers, it doesn't mean that it's infinite. Not to mention, if it really were infinite, then the Big Bang couldn't happen. How exactly do you get infinity to expand into infinity? Lies. It just means the machine is much more intricate than we realized.

If the Big Bang is the true method of creation, then the singularity was not infinite and neither is the universe. But we've also already learned that there cannot be even one singularity. For the universe is already SINGULAR. Just because your math can't figure it out, it don't make it infinite.

The math is wrong because the understanding of reality is wrong. It's hard to watch.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's more from Professor Daegene Song


In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."


www.prnewswire.com...



And you know what... his premise is totally flawed....

Consciousness is an emergent property...

It is not about designing a system to generate consciousness... it's about level of complexity.

An example of an emergent property would be say wetness... H2o can be a gas, a solid or a liquid... These phase changes are just the same molecules but arranged in different levels of order.

The feeling of wetness emerges when water is a fluid....

This applies in much the same way to consciousness which is an emergent property of computational complexity.



edit on 4-6-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity


Yet for every action there is an exact equal and opposite reaction.. isn't that one of the fundamentals we all lean in physics from an early age?

Not everything you learn at a young age is true.


The fact that Chaos exists doesn't negate the concept of a space-time continuum that encompasses all of space-time both past and future.

Chaos is something different from the type of randomness in QM. Chaotic behavior is totally deterministic, it's just very complicated and messy. The butterfly effect is a result of chaos, particle decay is a result of QM randomness. The first can be traced back to a cause and the second has no cause you can point to, it's non-casual.

One of the other major reasons I don't believe in a time continuum is because you get all sorts of paradoxes and weird things happening when you apply the laws of relativity to it. I just cannot accept the idea that travelling away from Earth at a fast velocity will cause the Earth to move into the past relative to my location in time.

There are also many philosophical reasons I deny the clockwork universe theory, number one being that it undermines the scientific process, any experiments we perform are not of our own volition because our actions were determined at the start of time. And any conclusions we reach about the nature of the universe are likely to be completely wrong.
edit on 4/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

You're still not paying attention.

I have already pointed out that people are unable to prove the obvious because the senses are limited in scope. The mind is not a sense. It is able to go beyond that limitation of sensing and it is able to envision reality beyond the senses of the body.

It is not a healthy mind that says that you do not exist unless I see you there. That is a narcissist.

I possess the opposite of arrogance. IT is all the narcissists in all their arrogance who do not seem to understand such a simple and obvious fact.

You did not give birth to yourself.

If you can "prove" that you gave birth to yourself, then you will "prove" the infantile thinking.

But ANYONE can literally prove that you did not give birth to yourself. Reality is not elusive at all if you realize that you are not alone!

I do not care who people say is the smartest or most influential. Once again, unlike you, I do not base what I know to be truth based upon credentials or bias. I base it on, as much as I am able to access with my mind, or to access with my senses, without bias, on reality.


You do understand that very debate was already largely discussed and disproven by the very same philosophers right. You know the ignorant narcissists that came up with modern scientific methodology.

I don't need to keep repeating what is already understood by basic philosophy students.

You certainly have some things right. About reason overcoming senses...its just you don't quite grasp that you don't know everything (which is not narcissism that has another definition depending on the Greek story or the clinical diagnosis).

It is very arrogant to assume you know more than these teams of scientists doing the math and getting the same results.

Do me a favor get the study do the math check their results then make a definitive opinion. Until then you are using arrogant ignorance. Just like so many that questioned atomic structure, the theory of relativity, evolution...then people made the theories produce results. Which is why I assume the us dept of energy has spent 300 million on such projects.

edit on 4-6-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


The reason why the "wave-function" is derived is because of fuzzy numbers, not fuzzy particles. Mathematics is an abstract universe. IT IS NOT REALITY.

However, the numbers can be useful for vague prediction when you understand the reality first.

Yes, the time-piece has ALL of the information of the time-piece in it. Just because you cannot absorb and process all of it, it does not mean that it is not there.

It seems to me you're beginning to promote hidden variable theories. You're essentially saying we just can't measure everything about the particle and that's why it's behavior seems random to us. But if you research topics such as Bells Theorem you will find that we can prove there is no classical or statistical theory that can explain how particles behave. The only way to explain it with classical logic is if all particles can instantaneously communicate with all other particles, and at that point you can hardly call it a classical system because there is no real locality.


edit on 4/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"Philosophers" "philosophy students" "teams of scientists"

You keep pointing to them.

Take responsibility for what you think.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Seems to me there're two extremes on this spectrum....

Cause/Effect < --------------- > Chaos

On the Cause/Effect side the future is 100% based on the past. On the Chaos side the future is 100% independent of the past.

The defeatists say the future is based on the past. So if you're losing a war badly then you'll probably not win in the future. The believers say the future can be anything. So if you're losing a war badly then you can still win.All we have to do is keep trying and things may work out.

Or the cynic vs the optimist.

The truth probably lays inbetween. There's some cause/effect and some chaos. I believe this is expressed in our understanding of the macro and micro. On the macroscale there's very a much a strong cause/effect presence. On the micro things are very much unpredictable and disconnected from familiar expectations. Both come together to produce our reality, resulting in something which gives us some chaos and some cause/effect.
edit on 4-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join