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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


If you're going to make the claim a particle exists independent of our observation you have to show how a material particle can be in a green state and blue state at the same time. You don't need a particle to exists, just the wave function which contains information about what states an observer can perceive when a measurement occurs.


You are arguing from a false premise. There is no proof that a particle can be in 'green state and blue state' at the same time. And then you are asking some one to prove something that they dont believe exists or is possible, to prove your point which depends on this false thing, the person doesnt believe in and cannot prove because it is false, to help you?



In order for you to debate what I said, you would have to show that a particle exists as an objective material reality independent of conscious observation.


Your entire premise is based on 'peek a boo'. Your argument is; You cant see without seeing.

Any time we want to know anything about anything, we must ultimately 'use our mind' to attempt to know anything about anything. Therefore tons of information can exist all around us and in us (and it does) but if we dont have minds, we cant access it; if our minds dont look at the information, the mind cannot look at the information.

You use this unfortunate fact, to then declare with absurd certainty, that 'information doesnt exist! that only the mind exists! that the mind happens to invent information wherever it looks, and that information happens to be relatively the same between people, even though they are all in control of their ability to invent information that surrounds them, yet they all choose to create the same trees and mountains and clouds and grass and roads'.




It's gets worse because elementary particles are point particles. Again, no evidence that a point particle has an independent material existence. Sadly,


"A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics"

Idealization, Idealization, Idealization, Idealization, Idealization, Idealization, Idealization....

"A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context."

Are you even reading the stuff you quote....

An appropriate representation (says...?) of an object (not point particle) whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant...irrelevant...irrelevant size shape and structure...

Do you understand what that means?

It means people say 'bahhh, we cant know that objects size, shape and structure, but in this given context all that information is irrelevant... lets call it a point and confuse magicians on the internet'.

Ok, even though you were trying to use point particle in your argument, now i see you comprehend that it is a concept and not knowledge of reality.





"There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law."


This is cool.

The way to comprehend reality is to pretend that you are the creator of it, to reverse engineer it, and then know what you have to do to wind up with this reality.

So, imagine with your current conception of your belief that the notion of 'particle' is meaningless and impossible. So that reality is only wave/s.

Starting with nothing, describe how you bring into existence to create the universe we have. You stretch one pure 3d energy field which has waving capabilities from one end to another, and then you take another one and put it over it or within it somehow, or squeeze them together, then another and a few more, and then you take a hammer and bang it to start, and then it all starts waving like crazy, and all the different crests and troughs (which is difficult to consider inside 3d object) interact with one another creating different quantities and values of crests and troughs which starting from the original hammer gong bang, creates some intrinsic order and stability and etc.

Thats cool and all, but the difficulty is considering the nature of the substance of the energy fields. How there can be substance, and distance amongst it, 3d object of substance, imagine a rectangle, here is a major crux so pay attention here and respond to this;

Imagine a rectangle of primordial substance, doesnt need to be strictly contained, so like you can kick a corner and that corner can fly away and everything wobbles like jelly and its no longer a rectangle, but in this moment it is a 3d rectangle of primordial substance energy, of what you would consider non particle, wave essence;

Now the entire trick of there being no particles, only a reality of 3d/4d perfect pointless medium of substance, that creates all the intense amounts of information of the reality you are attempting to describe with this thought is;

Imagine 30 of these 3d rectangles the size of the universe, one for each of the forces and substances and what not;

If no part of them is moving at all, thats well enough. But in order for anything to happen, there needs to be movement within them;

So to start and stay simply and simple; lets consider just one 3d/4d rectangle of primal substance;

If we agree that this 3d/4d rectangle has sides, as the meaning of rectangle forces us to agree, and we are familiar with the concept of area and volume, then we will be forced to agree that there is a relative center to the rectangle;

That there is a difference between 1 side and another;

Ok, now;

How do you move any of what is inside/of the rectangle?

What is anything you can say or dictate about the nature of the primal substance of this rectangle area/volume, that will allow us to conceive of the potential of 'areas within the area' moving in relation to other areas within the area?

I hope you can see that this concept is the crux of the issue.

Because it almost forces us to consider that for there to be true 'areas within the area in relation to other areas within the area', it almost forces us to consider that that is the nature of the concept of particle, that inside an area, of same substance, 'connected to itself', parts of itself, connected, can move in relation to other parts.

Now perhaps it can be like a box of worms, and you imagine I suppose what string theory kind of is, that there are a bunch of waves, and that you compress them all together to get this pure block rectangle of primal substance, but it is tech
edit on 12-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale


You can say that as long as you keep ignoring the results of the Quantum experiments we have been discussing.


You are misinterpreting the results.

Give me some concise statements which include and are the results of experiments, and then following them, write your interpretations, and I will show you where your interpretation is wrong.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale


In Quantum Eraser experiments, there are two possible outcomes, interference pattern and non interference pattern.



In the experiment in question in the other thread; It was with an atom.

Do you think an atom exists as an interference pattern traveling around from point A to B?

An atom enters Side A and is detected Side B.

No controversy. No interference pattern.


An atom enters Side A, energy is submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices, Atom is detected Side B;

There is interference pattern... I wonder why....... It couldnt possibly be because energy was submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices, it couldnt be that, because that would be a reasonable reason as to why an interference pattern is detected when energy is submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ah come on, I directed a post at you on page 3 plus the post below it. Don't tell me you didn't see them.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale

"Theres no evidence that a particle of matter does not exist before its observed" - imafungi


You can say that as long as you keep ignoring the results of the Quantum experiments we have been discussing.


Read my sentence again and if you are right you will prove the self who said what you said in response wrong.
edit on 12-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Theres no evidence that a particle of matter does not exist before its observed.


Evidence is observation.

Lack of evidence is ignorance.

Ignorance is not evidence.


You close your eyes; open your eyes; and conclude "My eyes were closed, I saw black, black was what existed, I opened my eyes, I saw stuff, stuff did not exist when my eyes were closed, when my eyes were closed I had no evidence that stuff existed, when I opened my eyes I observed that stuff existed, so this is evidence that stuff only exists when I open my eyes.

I am saying; Stuff exists; I close my eyes, I have no evidence or observation of stuff existing, I open my eyes, I observe and my observation is my evidence that stuff exists, I use lots of other thinking and reasoning and experiment and evidence to conclude that stuff exists regardless of whether my eyes are open or closed, it is merely a fact that when my eyes are closed the stuff has no way of interacting with my eyes, and when my eyes are open the stuff can interact with my eyes, the stuff exists, whether my eyes are open or closed, it is not reasonable, there is no reason, to conclude that my opening my eyes literally creates from nothing all the stuff that enters my eyes when my eyes are open.





It actually is irrational and illogical to think that material particles exist before it's observed because the scientific evidence doesn't support this.


So if you are standing at the bottom of a cliff with your eyes closed, and a boulder looses from the side of the cliff and falls towards directly at you, it cannot possible hit you if you do not look at it right?

We will see who is irrational and illogical after this answer methinks, I would be very down for you to put your money where your mouth it on this one too, hehe.

edit on 12-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ah come on, I directed a post at you on page 3 plus the post below it. Don't tell me you didn't see them.


All intelligence that has ever existed would be the judges of the entirety of our conversing and side with me. They would know for certain, that you could have copy pasted what I asked for with the same amount of effort it took for you to write this waste of a response, and they will be forced to conclude the only reason you did not do so is out of fear. Moreover if you fail to copy paste the response or do what I asked for you this time, but post another emotional and deflective response towards me, it will only be more evidence, to the totality of intelligence, that you are scared.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Yeah, right. Reality doesn't exists. It is just a mass hallucination, a dream. I mean it worked for the aborigines after all.


But what is this thread is doing in science and technology? It is clearly metaphysics or even mysticism.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
Yeah, right. Reality doesn't exists. It is just a mass hallucination, a dream. I mean it worked for the aborigines after all.


But what is this thread is doing in science and technology? It is clearly metaphysics or even mysticism.


This thread doesnt exist if you dont look at it, so just go away. I at least am attempting to deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Your ramblings are sounding like something from Ted Kaczynski.

I would respond but most of what you said is gibberish.

You said:


You close your eyes; open your eyes; and conclude "My eyes were closed, I saw black, black was what existed, I opened my eyes, I saw stuff, stuff did not exist when my eyes were closed, when my eyes were closed I had no evidence that stuff existed, when I opened my eyes I observed that stuff existed, so this is evidence that stuff only exists when I open my eyes.

I am saying; Stuff exists; I close my eyes, I have no evidence or observation of stuff existing, I open my eyes, I observe and my observation is my evidence that stuff exists, I use lots of other thinking and reasoning and experiment and evidence to conclude that stuff exists regardless of whether my eyes are open or closed, it is merely a fact that when my eyes are closed the stuff has no way of interacting with my eyes, and when my eyes are open the stuff can interact with my eyes, the stuff exists, whether my eyes are open or closed, it is not reasonable, there is no reason, to conclude that my opening my eyes literally creates from nothing all the stuff that enters my eyes when my eyes are open.


I have tried to decipher some of this as it pertains to the debate. Let me also remind you w're in a Scientific forum. People present scientific evidence and experiments and you counter with hyperbole that has nothing to do with the evidence presented, that's not a good debate. I looked through your post and didn't see a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

It boils down to you say stuff exists. Okay, what does that mean? How do you define stuff? Where's the scientific evidence that stuff exists beyond your perception that stuff exists?

First, you need to define stuff. What stuff are you talking about exactly? Photons, electrons, protons. I'm not being Facetious here, but it's hard to debate when it isn't coherent as to what's being debated.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow, no need to get rude.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Got cut off from the post on the top of the page;

.........


Now perhaps it can be like a box of worms, and you imagine I suppose what string theory kind of is, that there are a bunch of waves, and that you compress them all together to get this pure block rectangle of primal substance, but it is technically possible for parts of the substance to move in relation to other parts, and for those parts to be considered not particles;

Or even if the string itself does not intrinsically wiggle and wave, if it is a pure straight stick, it is still not a particle eh?

Something like a baseball is a perfect classical representation of what we can think of as the nature of a particle; something compact, concise, 'solid', can move from A to B to C to Z and maintains itself and its structure quite well;

What if we took the baseball and (magically with god hands) stretched it so that it was 2 feet long, would we still be able to consider it a particle?

What if later after we decide on that, we (zapped it with god wand) and turned it into a flimsy material, after it is already 2 feet long, so that whenever you throw it, the 2 feet long baseball 'waves' in the air, still a particle?

What about a million of those 2 feet long baseballs squeezed together so that they are no longer moving in relation to one another, are they still particles, do they form a larger particle?

What about now they are a little less squeezed, so that if you took a hammer and hit the outside of this large collection, they would ripple on the energy of the hammer hit to one another, and it would spread between them in novel ways, and areas of them would wave in certain manners, would the crests and troughs be called particles?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You are standing at the bottom of a cliff with your eyes closed, and a boulder looses from the side of the cliff and falls directly at you, it is falling directly at you and will certainly hit you, but, according to you, it cannot possibly hit you if you do not look at it right?

You are saying;

You close your eyes, and you see black, so that means the only thing that exists is you and blackness. And then you open your eyes and see the sun, the moon, buildings, grass, trees, animals, cars, planes, food, water, clothing, books, computers and you declare;

When my eyes were closed, only nothing existed;

When I opened my eyes, I created all that I see. What I see when my eyes are open did not exist when my eyes were closed.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




All intelligence that has ever existed would be the judges of the entirety of our conversing and side with me. They would know for certain, that you could have copy pasted what I asked for with the same amount of effort it took for you to write this waste of a response,


Oh so that means you were too lazy to read the thread were you left of? I even gave you directions ffs. You are quite the diva. A real material girl.

And no it is not same effort, I would have to change the page I was on. Something I am not willing to do for you.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




There is interference pattern... I wonder why....... It couldnt possibly be because energy was submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices, it couldnt be that, because that would be a reasonable reason as to why an interference pattern is detected when energy is submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices.


Wth, did you even read what I posted?

Then why was the interference pattern not there before when they detected the path of the particle?

This is going to be funny.

If what you suggest is true, then we would see an interference pattern when we detected the particle and its path.

Do we?

You are not even touching the fact that interference is restored when the info is erased.

You are indeed rambling. You are not even getting the basic stuff right now.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

edit on 12-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale


Then why was the interference pattern not there before when they detected the path of the particle?


How did they detect the path of the particle?



If what you suggest is true, then we would see an interference pattern when we detected the particle and its path.


What is done to detect the particle and its path?

To be clear, we are speaking about the atom example from the other thread?




You are not even touching the fact that interference is restored when the info is erased.


Where is the info stored?

How is it erased?

This occurs in a continual stream of constant particle shooting? That there is no interference pattern when info is stored (waiting till you say how the info is stored, where, and how it is erased) and there is still no interference pattern for continual particle after particle after particle, thousands and thousands of them, no interference pattern, info of this is being stored, and then someone erases the info, and exactly as that info is released there is an interference pattern?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




Again; write 1 (or more) statements, which you think are true, that you think I might think are false, so I can prove you wrong and me right.


No I'm done with you. It is clear that it is impossible to have a discussion with you based on a mutual understanding of what the other is saying.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: HotMale

If the quanta that enters the apparatus at Side A is analogically maximally identical in nature to an ocean wave;

Then yes, interference can occur.

If the quanta that enters the apparatus at Side A is analogically maximally identical in nature to a baseball;

And the experiment is only 1 baseball enters the apparatus at Side A;

It is impossible, under any circumstances, for that quanta to result in an interference pattern; unless the interference pattern is the result of energy being introduced in the system besides the test quanta, and it is that energy that leaves the pattern.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Then why was the interference pattern not there before when they detected the path of the particle?



How did they detect the path of the particle?


With a device.

You said this,




There is interference pattern... I wonder why....... It couldnt possibly be because energy was submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices, it couldnt be that, because that would be a reasonable reason as to why an interference pattern is detected when energy is submitted into the system in the form of single or multiple activities of devices.


So using a device creates both an interference and a non interference pattern. That is what you are suggesting.

........




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join