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.

 

What is Decoherence?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
No I am not going to watch any more YT vids by some woman giving her view on things.

Give me a link to the exact experiment she is basing it on.

What I need to know is if the information that in this case is not looked at, is stored and still available?

Is it or is it not?

I still don't see you explaining why there is an interference pattern if the info is erased.

It still interacted with a detector yet there is an interference pattern.

This show that it is NOT the detector itself.

Why do you keep ignoring the erasure part?


No its not it's a double blind the information can't be looked at that is why we know conscience isn't needed to alter wave function. Nit watching the videos o posted confirms something. You don't want to learn you want to argue. And facts mean nothing to you. Even the slightest research will explain how the quantum eraser experiment works it was designed specifically to take humans out of the equation. Because in physics we thought like you maybe consciousness effects our measurements it did not make a diffrence. It's the act of measuring period we don't know why we don't even know how. But anytime a system is measured it changes it.

This is why I was discussing with you about information that is the key information transfer. Any time information is transfered it changes the system. A photon travelling across the galaxy doesn't contact anyrhing it never has to be in a specific point to transfer information it does. Again watch the video and learn it's not like in physics we haven't asked the question you did.





PS the universe is not fine tuned for anything I really hate when these pseudo science websites try to prove their world view using that one. People are easy to manipulate.
edit on 6/14/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: HotMale


Not really relevant, the end results are what they are.

Actually it's extremely relevant.


If the detection is made but you never look at the info, the interference pattern still collapses. Correct. You think that this proves that you don't need a conscious observer.

Can you then explain why there is an interference pattern when the info is erased, making it impossible to know, as opposed to just not checking it, and there being the potential of it still becoming known?

I was talking about a setup where the data gets deleted. I'm talking about a simple double-slit setup with a detector which records which-path information and then completely erases it almost instantly after recording it. If you do that experiment you will find that the wave-function collapses even though the path information is not available.

Clearly the detector must play some role in the collapse. The delayed-choice quantum eraser works with entangled pairs and it does something much more subtle than directly measure which slit the photon travels though, you can't even tell what happened until you put all the data from the detectors together.

If your claim was correct then we would be able to send information into the past by delaying our decision to observe or erase the which-path information, but in reality there isn't a single experiment which will allow us to send information into the past, nature simply wont allow the past to interact with the future.

The delayed-choice quantum eraser is probably the best example we have of retrocausal activity, but even it cannot be used to send information into the past because you can't deduce the which-path information just by looking at the result of the signal photon. Just like you can't send information FTL using entanglement.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

My personal belief is time doesn't work backwards to a photon time doesn't exist.Just think about that idea. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Would of photon exist in this universe if we didn't exist?

The sun could wipe out the entire human species with a large enough solar flare, and I'm pretty sure the photons from the solar flare would keep on cruising into deep space even after every last one of us was wiped out. There are parts of the EM spectrum I can't even see, and I'm pretty sure there are trillions of photons flowing through my body right now even though I can't see them.

Let me ask you a simple question, if I discover a new planet and I am the first to observe it, how can it be possible for other people to discover the same planet completely independently from me? If the planet doesn't really exist outside of conscious perception, why does its existence remain consistent? Is there some sort of universe memory bank keeping tabs on what has already been observed?

You can't just say it was always there waiting to be observed, because then you have to admit things do exist externally to conscious observers. But if it didn't exist before anyone looked at, what process decided I should see a planet rather than a gas cloud? It seems to me the only way you can attempt to explain this is to say the observer decides what they will see, or they will see what they expect to see.

I truly want to know how you imagine it works...
edit on 15/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: neoholographic


Would of photon exist in this universe if we didn't exist?

The sun could wipe out the entire human species with a large enough solar flare, and I'm pretty sure the photons from the solar flare would keep on cruising into deep space even after every last one of us was wiped out. There are parts of the EM spectrum I can't even see, and I'm pretty sure there are trillions of photons flowing through my body right now even though I can't see them.

Let me ask you a simple question, if I discover a new planet which has never been observed before, how can it be possible for other people to discover the same planet completely independently from me? If the planet doesn't really exist outside of conscious perception, why does its existence remain consistent? Is there some sort of universe memory bank keeping tabs on what has already been observed?

I truly want to know how you imagine it works...


I Have A better one how can you die from radiation exposure you can't see feel or taste. If without observation radiation doesn't exist then it can't kill you unless you have a gieger counter.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
I Have A better one how can you die from radiation exposure you can't see feel or taste. If without observation radiation doesn't exist then it can't kill you unless you have a gieger counter.

I liked my example of the tree branch falling on your head when you're not looking, lol. But the best examples are the ones which demonstrate how facts are kept consistent between observations made by different observers. It proves there must be something external to observers, because all the observers see the same thing when conducting independent measurements.

And it can't just be the result of some malleable shared delusion because the laws of physics are always exactly the same. When I build an electronic circuit, it doesn't do what I expect it to do, it does exactly what the laws of physics dictate it should do even if I don't know how circuits work. When I go and research electronic circuits I will eventually find out why it works that way.
edit on 15/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Think about forces like determined will. That is, forces take on patterns or shapes. e.g. Like a child playing with play-doh, where the play-doh is forces, and how the child molds it, is how he determines his will/the forces, but instead of seeing the play-doh as forces, instead of us seeing forces, we see play-doh, and interpret it (play-doh/forces) as objective physical forms.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Physicality/form is our interpretation of forces/play-doh. There is no separation.

Think of it just like these words before you understood their meaning: you saw them only as shapes, but once you measured/observed/conceived their conceptual meaning, then you saw the words as my concepts -- you saw the play-doh as concepts where you once saw only shapes, and before that, only light like a new born before they conceive shapes.

The white/gold or blue/black dress is a perfect example of this. Before you conceive the dress as blue/black all you conceive is white/gold.

But do not get me wrong, the forces are shaped, the dress was blue/black, as that is how the forces were imaged by the one who originally determined it.

Does that make any sense?

Yes, physicality predates us, but it does not predate the one who originally shaped it - the one who puts his will into physicality - the one who interprets his will / translates it into form. Form is always, yes, but so is he, and his will - the formation was his.
edit on 6/15/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



When I build an electronic circuit, it doesn't do what I expect it to do, it does exactly what the laws of physics dictate it should do even if I don't know how circuits work.

That applies to coding too.

Back in the day I'd drop of a stack of punch cards for the next batch run and expect a page of output, only to see a one inch pile of paper on the counter. Stupid computer did what I told it to do, not what I wanted it to. More hours of looking at code spread out all over the floor to find the stupid loop I made.



edit on 6/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

to a photon time doesn't exist.Just think about that idea. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again.


I think there is no reason to say such a thing.

You might as well say the same thing for any fundamental particles.

Ive said it before and ill say it again, because it was true before I said it, is true now, and will be true after I say it;

Time is only movement (and the potential for movement).

Especially for theories that involve the photon being 2 separate waves which cause each other... that requires time, for there to be a wave.

Ok and time also has to do with a thermodynamically irreversible system, right.

Which is why you may be inclined to say 'photon is timeless', also maybe you say this because a photon cant be created or destroyed (or can it?), if a photon can exist forever, that may be why you want to say it that way.

But also you may want to say that, because it is what all else is measured by, and what may be considered as the ultimate time... but still, there is really no reason to say what you said.

First of all, there is an ultimate reference frame of time. It is just that it is impossible or near impossible to know it, so we dont attempt to know or think about it, we attempt to deal with relativity of reference frames.

There is an ultimate reference frame because; energy cannot be created or destroyed. Which means there is always a finite quantity of energy that exists. This finite quantity is changing/transforming/moving (which is time), and you see the ultimate reference frame, is the fact that the total collection is existing at the same time always, so it is near impossible to escape the universe and create a perfect stop watch, and then look at the totality of galaxies and watch them move at the same time, but the fact that they are existing at the same time, and moving in relation to one another, is the ultimate reference frame of time at work.

Because energy cannot be created or destroyed reality is eternal. This does not mean there is no such thing as time, because time is merely the linear sequence of actions. Linear is a tough word in here, because there is a lot of spinning going on. But yes the causal chain of events, like, your great great great great great grand parents existed first and now you exist because of what they did when they were alive during that present moment of 'ultimate time'.

Now you rightfully must be thinking in terms of material, a stop watch, a heart beat, cells communicating to one another, and the fact that any of these materials sped up to light speed would have difficulty 'moving their parts how they 'normally' do at their usual constant reference frame of gravity, inertia and relative increases of velocity.

You see the time of a human life is measured in multiple ways; how many times around the sun, but although that is something that can be used to keep time, and is related to the overall fact of events, there are more intimate facts, like the movements of cells dividing, the energy expended and gained in seeking and capturing food, and eating; there is top down and bottom up relation between the macro and the micro, but things like a stop watch, that can then be fit into things like 'a year', well I dont know if we can say which is more fundamental. Or if any are, or if they are both just relations of 'rates of stuff moving over space' (which is what time is).

So if we shrunk a human down to the size of a photon, and put a saddle on the photon, and imagined we can slow down a photon (photons slowing down in material is, sketchy... I am not sold that it means the photon actually slows down, more so the effect of capture and release 'taking up time' from entrance to exist of the material, not even sure thats controversial or just known fact)

so the photon was starting slow, so you can hop on it, and then it starts increasing speed, toward light speed, and then gets to light speed, well we would imagine all the organs and cells in your body that adapted over millions of years to earth gravity, would have trouble operating the same way after having gone through such acceleration, so it is that sense, them having to 'work extra' or potentially do more work, exert more energy, to hold on for dear life, to fight against extra force, which is the 'increase in time'.

Now if one did not assume that, but just imagined, our bodies were perfect robots, and could operate the same way under any conditions;

then, that is where one may assume 'decrease in time experienced', but its tricky, because its not like your limbs would have turbo speed, like you were running through the world on fast forward and could do the home chores faster;

because the nature of light speed, is purely, raw linear velocity.

so perhaps it can only be considered in relation to the nature of a race. You could not enter a hot dog eating contest and win because you were traveling at light speed and could eat 9999 hot dogs in a minute.

But quite obviously, you could 'get a faster time' running the mile, then an average opponent.

But lets imagine a photon had eyes and a mind; the reason I claim it would experience time (is because time is only the fact of movement, but also maybe) because imagine light sent from the sun towards pluto, and all the planets were aligned in an epic line eclipse (even if impossible imagine it),

The photon would look down and see, the planets in order; mercury, venus, earth, mars...etc.

So you see, the photon could come up with any form of counting, from 1234567, to 1 mississippi, 2 mississippi, to counting in seconds, to counting in planck seconds, any even unit of measurement (well it can do this without the planet example, to prove time exists in relation to it, but) (or even uneven unit of measurement, would still represent succession)

And it will see 1 planet, 2 planet, 3 planet....

So it will know time exists. But time is only movement. And even if objects are absolutely stationary in any or every frame of reference, they still exist amidst the total time of the ultimate temporal reference frame (which even if we cant know it, still exists, because it is itself, the fact 'stuff exists' and the fact that stuff moves.)


You see imagine 2 different photons.

Even if photons didnt move at all, time would still be proven to a photon, because 1 photon occurs before or after another. So a photon would know succession exists. Time is movement, movement implies casualty/succession.(or even maybe it can be said, movement is causality)


But yes ok if we are speaking purely relatively now, like to the photon itself, relatively, not considering the nature of other objects, it certainly is interesting to consider the nature of non movement and time.

For example; Imagine if cryogenic freezing is possible. A person can be frozen at age 50. Imagine they are frozen for 1000 years. And then revived, and everything about them was frozen, brain and everything. They would have been existing for ultimate reference frame time, they would be 1050 years old, but their consciousness (lets assume it was like the deepest sleep, or like they got anesthesia, which is like the deepest sleep) to them 'no time would have passed',



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

(continued)

to them no time would have passed; because they were not aware of movement.

And to their cells no time would have passed, because they did not have to move, they did not have to work, they did not have to alter their non reversible thermodynamical equilibrium.

And what do you think about the interest of this that, I can use the concept of freezing, which is lowering energy, as a concept of 'slowing down time', and you were using the highest energy, as the concept of slowing down time.

I dont think light speed is so 'extraly ultimate' that it is into this new realm of not even having anything to do with time; in conclusion I think it probably would just experience time very slowly, like if it was doing laps around earth, everything would be in super slow motion (everything would look in super fast motion, as in motion blur, but activities would take longer compared to it)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow only made it halfway through the book you wrote. Really couldn't get your circular logic but herr I'll make it simple about photons and time.Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. IN OTHER WORDS NO FREEZING! Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Nit watching the videos o posted confirms something. You don't want to learn you want to argue.


BS, there is a reason I asked you for a link to the specific eraser experiment so I can see for myself, instead of taking YT chick and your word for it.

I see no link and you are still ignoring the erasure part.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


dp






edit on 15-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I was talking about a setup where the data gets deleted. I'm talking about a simple double-slit setup with a detector which records which-path information and then completely erases it almost instantly after recording it. If you do that experiment you will find that the wave-function collapses even though the path information is not available.


Is this a thought experiment you came up with or an actual experiment that was conducted?

Link please.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I liked my example of the tree branch falling on your head when you're not looking, lol.


Would it have fallen on your head if you weren't there? Getting hit in the head with a branch is an "observation" of a process that is the result of a universal program. You don't have to believe this, but these kind of arguments against it are not very good.

It'is not just about looking with your eyes.


edit on 15-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: dragonridr




Nit watching the videos o posted confirms something. You don't want to learn you want to argue.


BS, there is a reason I asked you for a link to the specific eraser experiment so I can see for myself, instead of taking YT chick and your word for it.

I see no link and you are still ignoring the erasure part.







Bs she explains that information in the video tells you she has an entire video on it it's listed right next to this one. You just want to attack her because you can't argue against the quantum eraser experiment. Even a basic google search shows you the experiment and there's even a wiki page. Problem is you want to ignore the results because it shows your wrong.

Now this another theory that explains the results you keep misinterpreting it's called pilot wave theory or bohemian mechanics. This is deterministic in nature and can be used in place of quantum mechanics. It gives the same results because it uses the wave function in its calcularuons. It's basically Newtons laws with the added wave function. IMAFUNGI WOULD LOVE THIS ONE BUT I DON'T MENTION IT TO HIM BECAUSE HE WOULD MISUNDERSTAND SOMETHINGS OF THE IMPLICATIONS.

But this gives us a diffrent implications in the same experiment. With this our pilot waves interacting determines if we get decoherence. The particle is always a particle and it always only takes 1 path.

edit on 6/15/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/15/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Bs she explains that information in the video tells you she has an entire video on it it's listed right next to this one. You just want to attack her because you can't argue against the quantum eraser experiment. Even a basic google search shows you the experiment and there's even a wiki page.


Really? You get mad because I am asking for source material instead of some woman interpretations. There is no difference between you talking or her talking.

I am aware that there is a wike page. Do you know what it says exactly? Please qoute the parts that corroborate your claims and refute mine.

The only reason I am asking is because I am not familiar with these claims even though I am familiar with the experiments.

I think it is hilarious that you attack me for asking for source material instead of swallowing some YT vid that is some girls interpretation.

Don't be pathetic.

Again, prove your point dude and I will concur.






edit on 15-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You said:

Bs she explains that information in the video tells you she has an entire video on it it's listed right next to this one. You just want to attack her because you can't argue against the quantum eraser experiment.

Who is she? What are her credentials and why should anyone give weight to her opinion?

You post a video of someones opinion and try to pass it off as evidence?

She described the experiment but then she says consciousness plays no special role.

Two things:

SHE NEVER SAYS WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO HOW DOES SHE KNOW THIS?

SHE SAYS IN THE VIDEO SHE'S NOT SURE HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS, SO IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS HOW DOES SHE KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS NO SPECIAL ROLE?

That's not evidence of anything.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

You said:

Bs she explains that information in the video tells you she has an entire video on it it's listed right next to this one. You just want to attack her because you can't argue against the quantum eraser experiment.

Who is she? What are her credentials and why should anyone give weight to her opinion?

You post a video of someones opinion and try to pass it off as evidence?

She described the experiment but then she says consciousness plays no special role.

Two things:

SHE NEVER SAYS WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO HOW DOES SHE KNOW THIS?

SHE SAYS IN THE VIDEO SHE'S NOT SURE HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS, SO IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS HOW DOES SHE KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS NO SPECIAL ROLE?

That's not evidence of anything.


You expect people to give weight to yours as to who is she well I happen to know she's an associate professor at stanford. And her qualifications far out weighs yours I'm sure. But you come on here and want to argue what you believe the results mean without any understanding of all the possubilities. I see this whenever someone first tries to learn about physics and thinks they know it all. I can come up with a minimum of 10 different explination depending which theory I use. Yes there is alot of variants to QM. This is why I asked you several times for you to tell me what you believe is happening. You have been unable to do this so I know you have no clear understanding of the subject. Even as annoying as ImaFungi is he at least has a firm grasp of classical mechanics and basic knowledge of quantum. You don't seem to understand either or you would never by into pseudo science websites miss interpretations.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow only made it halfway through the book you wrote. Really couldn't get your circular logic but herr I'll make it simple about photons and time.Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. IN OTHER WORDS NO FREEZING! Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).


Should have read more than half, you contributed nothing new to my understanding. You just restated your opinion which I 'wrote a book about' why it is a false opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join