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.

 

It's a WAVE!

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

a reply to: ZakOlongapo

Maybe it's not gravity, maybe it is the laws of chemical bounds.
They are so small they don't have stuff like weight and so on, they are pure information, without bounds as we know them.




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Do come in and make sure you bring your arrogance. We wouldn't want anyone going away without feeling stupid would we.


Your ignorance is not equal to other people's knowledge. There's nothing noble about speculating from ignorance because you haven't bothered to put the work in to understand the subject matter.
edit on 13-5-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple

Also I am sorry, there is no pseudo-science forum.


Too bad. Your post would fit right in there!



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
What do you say?
Also I am sorry, there is no pseudo-science forum.
I've seen pseudo-science threads moved to "skunk works" before so presumably they are on-topic there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While it's very important that ATS maintain it's reputation as a place where logic, critical analysis and even skeptical thought are applied to popular conspiracy theories, it's also important to embrace the ability to incubate new ideas and theories. The Skunk Works Forum is this incubator for your theories and ideas.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.


So that's where theories without corroboration go, right? Does that describe your theory, or hypothesis?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Skunk Works would have been an option, because it is new.

I was all excited when I saw your answered. What do you think? Can it work?

And corroboration:
In my head it explains the double slit, spooky action at a distance and quantum entanglement.
Imagine it like there is the surface, with strings of information, below it is where bigger strings of information integrate loose ones into their "family", while swimming in a sea of scattered data, which are the tiniest possible particles.
It would be always in motion. Bounding, loosing parts, pushed and attracted.
But no, no corroboration.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
The Double-slit experiment tells us electrons behave as particles, if observed and as wave, if un-observed, right?
That would imply reality, what "materialises" is one dot of an iceberg of possibilities.
This dimension of reality is the surface of the wave, which is made up by other waves influencing each other. Or "forces" as we call them. Just like "degree of freedom" for dimension, it really already says it all.
Each other dimension would be where one of the forces and its "dark counterpart" are absent.
Just time and information are everywhere. But these dimensions interact, like waves and contribute to what we perceive as material reality.
The least common force would be gravity.

What do you say?
Also I am sorry, there is no pseudo-science forum.


You don't see wave like behavior (interference pattern) when looking at a single particle/event. So you'll need an additional constraint to explain this, something like interaction quantization maybe (I am speculating here) that makes them look like particles. Meaning they are waves but can only interact in discrete units (planck quanta?). This would also remove the need for the observed/unobserved nonsense.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Well that's where you are wrong and I really haven't contributed much on the subject of quantum physics but I'm betting I have more books on the subject on my bookshelf than you do.
I have Bohm, Bhor,Wolf,and Ledderman.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Simulation manifesting on a probability field that is trying to fake it.

Quantum eraser experiment.


How you set up the experiment forces the outcome/manifestation of the experiment.
edit on 14-5-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Arbitrageur
What do you think? Can it work?
As I explained in the opening post of Ask any question you want about Physics, the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment eludes scientists. The Copenhagen interpretation is taught in textbooks, but the OP of that thread has a video by Sean Carroll discussing other interpretations which he believes some of which are more likely than Copenhagen to be correct, but he is well-versed in this subject and he can't prove any of that and that's the point of the video, that this subject remains an unsolved mystery in modern physics.

So for someone to come along and say they've solved a problem which none of the best minds in the world have been able to solve in the last century is a bold claim. The solution will need to come from someone who understands the science well and the language of science well and can prove why their interpretation is the correct one, and they will probably still be challenged so their explanation and proof must be good enough to stand up to those challenges.

Now let's take the first part of your OP:


originally posted by: Peeple
The Double-slit experiment tells us electrons behave as particles, if observed and as wave, if un-observed, right?


As stated, this is not exactly right, but because I'm familiar with the experiment I know what you probably intended, which would be to refer to whether the "which-path" information is observed. Technically the omission of that qualifier makes that statement incorrect because both wave and particle properties are observed in the double-slit experiment. So any solution to this unsolved problem will have to start with using careful language, and also mathematics, which is the language of physics.

So if you wanted to defend your idea against challenges one of the first things you might be asked is how does your interpretation compare to all of the other interpretations in the Sean Carroll video, is it already the same as any of those? How does your math compare to the math of those proposed explanations? Does it make any predictions that can be tested in experiment that will make it uniquely identifiable as a more correct interpretation than the other interpretations?

Most of the proposed interpretations in mainstream science have not been falsified, though a few of the more radical ideas probably can be by now. The formulation of your idea isn't formal enough and there's not enough math for it to be evaluated.

edit on 2016514 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
This just isn't even remotely close to what the double-slit experiment actually shows. It shows that the act of observing with an instrument in fact creates interference that guides the particle into one slit over the other. It also shows that in mathematics we deal with probability by statistically plotting it and can represent this as a wave function.

There's tons of statistics that follow this same wave function. It's just how things work. All the woo-woo surrounding this topic has to do from laymen trying to inject their beliefs where their knowledge and understanding of the science and the scientists use of specific words is lacking.


Quantum eraser and Delayed eraser "Double Slit" type experiments have proven that it is not the interaction with an instrument itself that causes the wave collapse, but the availability of "which path" information to the conscious observer.

I would even say Delayed Eraser experiments prove that "reality" materialises to fit our knowledge of the variables. Even if it has to violate our laws of time and space for it.

It is laughable that people still try to debunk these results with saying "it's just the instrument creating interference", cause then you just don't get it. It's not even an explanation, since that doesn't explain the results of quantum experiments.

And if it did then why is Quantum Physics still a gray area that we are still trying to figure out? There would be no weird and counter intuitive results, no violations of laws of space and time, because it was all because of our experimental apparatus itself.

That's what your argument boils down to.






edit on 14-5-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Quantum eraser and Delayed eraser "Double Slit" type experiments have proven that it is not the interaction with an instrument itself that causes the wave collapse, but the availability of "which path" information to the conscious observer.
You can omit "conscious".

Can the results of a delayed choice quantum eraser be explained in laymen's terms that also shows that human consciousness is not a factor?

After doing more research, I found an article, "Quantum Mechanics Needs No Consciousness,"* translated into English from the German, published by the journal of the Max Planck Institute. This article summarizes the results of quantum eraser experiments. When information regarding the path of photons was detected by measurement instruments but not read by a human, the photon still collapsed into particle form. This means that consciousness did not play a role in the photon coming into existence as a particle.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is a just an opinionated report based on existing experiments in which they draw false conclusions. Like I said, what matters is the availability of "which path" to a conscious observer, but they seem to think it should matter if the observer actually gets to know this info.

Reality makes sure it is correct prepared for the situation in which the info is available and somebody has the possiblity to check it. It doesn't matter if they actually check it.

They think that the fact that it doesn't matter if the info is actually checked by a conscious observer, disproves the role of consiousness, but this is just very dumb, since it clearly still matters if it is available to this consciousness or not. In fact it is the only thing that matters.

I think this has been explained to you before.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you, to me it is a first success you didn't call it bs!

I'll be working on it. Might take a while.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




You can omit "conscious".


So together with the report you linked, you are saying that it is in fact the instrumental setup that is the consistent source for all quantum weirdness, but this directly contradicts your earlier response to the OP in which you admit that it is an unsolved mystery.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
So together with the report you linked, you are saying that it is in fact the instrumental setup that is the consistent source for all quantum weirdness, but this directly contradicts your earlier response to the OP in which you admit that it is an unsolved mystery.
It's not a contradiction. Here is the Sean Carroll video I was talking about where he discusses these topics:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment)


0:48 I said it was extremely embarrassing to physics that 80 years after we figured out how quantum mechanics works, we still don't know what it really means....

7:53 'observation' makes it sound like the existence of a conscious observer is somehow important to quantum mechanics, and it's completely not. That's an utterly bogus road to go down.
So, we don't know the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because we don't know how to prove that with experiments, but we do know that a so-called 'observation' of a quantum system doesn't need to be made by a conscious observer because we can prove that much with experiments.


originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you, to me it is a first success you didn't call it bs!

I'll be working on it. Might take a while.
Don't get too excited. In one of Richard Feynman's lectures he joked he had a theory of "moogles" that was a great theory because nobody could prove it wrong, but it was a very sarcastic comment about his fictitious theory because what he really meant is that it's easy to come up with a theory that nobody can prove wrong. The hard part is coming up with a theory that you can prove is right and that matches all experimental data. So, I don't think Feynman considered his moogles theory a success just because nobody could prove it wrong. He was a brilliant physicist, so I'd suggest trying to learn something from him.

I wish you the best of luck. As Sean Carroll says it would be nice to have an answer that can be proven correct.

edit on 2016515 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Don't mind me. Just passing here applauding some of the posts that are informative and are showing respect to the fellow member. Carry on guys.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Please read your linked quora answer again.


While at one time, it appeared that consciousness played a role in these experiments, most physicists currently say that the transformation from wave to particle is due to ANY interaction of the photon with the environment.


Remember, it appears to act like a wave, that doesn't mean it's a wave.
edit on 15-5-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Like I said, experiments have shown that it can't be due to the interaction with the experimntal apparatus, and a single particle cannot be a wave. Nothing you said is a counter argument and like I said before, if it is the apparatus then you just solved Quantum Physics.....congratulations, nothing to see here.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




So, we don't know the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because we don't know how to prove that with experiments, but we do know that a so-called 'observation' of a quantum system doesn't need to be made by a conscious observer because we can prove that much with experiments.


Actually some of us do know the correct interpretation, it is in our faces. The missing mechanism you agree must exist it is right there. The only thing connecting these events is the conscious observer.

Please qoute the experiment in which it is proven that it is not the availability of info to the conscious observer that is the key factor.

Like I said, that report you posted completely misinterpretes the results, but you didn't respond to that.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Dp.


edit on 15-5-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join