Quantum Mechanics - The Unicorn left behind

It is almost 100 years since the term "Quantum Mechanics" was coined. It was at a time when philosophy and physics appeared to meet each other - an exciting period when many felt we were on the brink of new discoveries.However, looking at the world today, it is clear that all this inspiration and pioneering has been snuffed out by those who dare not venture into the unknown.

For many who are not from a scientific background, the first exposure to QM was most likely though Youtube clips, such as "What The Bleep Do We Know ", which had quite an impact and created food for thought. Yet, Not long after its release, the clip was poo-pooed by some scientists while others resented the fact that "their" science was being thrown to the swines.

In my view, the paradox inherent in QM theory is the very cause of the lack of interest in the subject. As we all know, scientist like objective proof . Yet , the greatest benefit to be derived from QM is to stop looking at the atomic and sub-atomic levels and use the initial theory as a platform for some intuitive , philosophical, creative extrapolation. Let me explain what I mean. If you start at the "Copenhagen Interpretation" (or What the bleeb full version) and ignore subsequent attempts to disprove it you can build on the theory and see the Quantum Mechanics that operates in your every day life. You see how your mind integrates with the environment and enormously affects it. Opportunities, chance and probabilities take on new meaning.

One of the critics of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" was physicist Erwin Schrödinger and he expressed what he thought was a flaw through his thought experiment referred to as "Schrödinger's cat". He aimed to demonstrate that the argument of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" was flawed; in other words, something could not be in two different states at the same time. I personally disagree with Schrodinger. Having said that, I must admit that I have enjoyed all the cartoon images that people have come up with in relation to the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment. Just imagine Twitter going into meltdown if the "cat experiment" happened in our era instead of 1935. Here are some of the funny cartoons. Post continues after.








Why does QM matter to me ? It is because it pleases me whenever Science meets Magic or, to put it in another way, where the integration of the mind with the environment is scientifically acknowledged and the power of the mind (of the observer) to change outcomes is recognised.

Sadly QM now does not seem to have a future. Not that it bothers me but it would have made a lot of difference to the world if it had been taken on board by the multitude. Scientists have dug their heels in and reformulated QM to include Special Relativity , Particle spin, speed of light, etc. Hence creating a box which is exactly what you should not do. Unsurprisingly, taking the safe route back into their shell.

Next time you look at a card face down or throw a coin, consider that the result is indeterminate until you turn the card over or look at the dropped coin. Don't take the view of Schrödinger that the result has already been determined .

Should I clean it, or can it wait a day?

Schrodinger's litterbox...

a reply to: crowdedskies

You might like this video:

a reply to: crowdedskies

Next time you look at a card face down or throw a coin, consider that the result is indeterminate until you turn the card over or look at the dropped coin. Don't take the view of Schrödinger that the result has already been determined .

So I was writing a QBasic program to do coin tosses for the I Ching back in 1997. As long as the random generator was stand alone it did a good job of turning out random results.

But once I added the sub routine which used the random result to determine one of the 64 hexagrams it was no longer random. Three out of five results would come up with Creativity. Isolate again: random. Connect to hexagrams: not random.

Either the program was aware that I was creating it, or I was aware that I was creating the program.

I didn't read Philip Pullman's His Dark Matters books until 2008. In The Subtle Knife there is the explanation that I Ching functions like the alethiometer(golden compass).

a reply to: crowdedskies

Understanding quantum mechanics is like trying to unlock your car door with a pumpkin.

I'm glad you mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation, many pseudo philologists use the term without knowing it was schroedinger highlighting the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: crowdedskies

Next time you look at a card face down or throw a coin, consider that the result is indeterminate until you turn the card over or look at the dropped coin. Don't take the view of Schrödinger that the result has already been determined .

So I was writing a QBasic program to do coin tosses for the I Ching back in 1997. As long as the random generator was stand alone it did a good job of turning out random results.

But once I added the sub routine which used the random result to determine one of the 64 hexagrams it was no longer random. Three out of five results would come up with Creativity. Isolate again: random. Connect to hexagrams: not random.

Either the program was aware that I was creating it, or I was aware that I was creating the program.

I didn't read Philip Pullman's His Dark Matters books until 2008. In The Subtle Knife there is the explanation that I Ching functions like the alethiometer(golden compass).

Very interesting comment!

I am not familiar with the use of an alethiometer. I will now read about it try and get one or make one.

There is a lot going on when writing programs. I taught myself how to write java programs and am also pretty good with VBA (self-taught again), I get a different experience from those who have formal IT backgrounds. I become aware of the inter-action of the mind with the program that is being written; one feeds the other with information and what the next move is to be.


BTW, I believe there is a major flaw with the theory of Probability. The laws do not work if the observer really gets engaged.

originally posted by: crowdedskies
it is clear that all this inspiration and pioneering has been snuffed out by those who dare not venture into the unknown.

Nonsense. QM is doing fine. The progress we are making in material science and computing is incredible.

For many who are not from a scientific background, the first exposure to QM was most likely though Youtube clips, such as "What The Bleep Do We Know ", which had quite an impact and created food for thought. Yet, Not long after its release, the clip was poo-pooed by some scientists while others resented the fact that "their" science was being thrown to the swines.

"What The Bleep Do We Know" is pseudo-scientific blubber.

In my view, the paradox inherent in QM theory is the very cause of the lack of interest in the subject. As we all know, scientist like objective proof . Yet , the greatest benefit to be derived from QM is to stop looking at the atomic and sub-atomic levels and use the initial theory as a platform for some intuitive , philosophical, creative extrapolation. Let me explain what I mean. If you start at the "Copenhagen Interpretation" (or What the bleeb full version) and ignore subsequent attempts to disprove it you can build on the theory and see the Quantum Mechanics that operates in your every day life. You see how your mind integrates with the environment and enormously affects it. Opportunities, chance and probabilities take on new meaning.

That is what happens when you get your information from youtube clips. Who needs science when we have youtube, right?

Why does QM matter to me ? It is because it pleases me whenever Science meets Magic or, to put it in another way, where the integration of the mind with the environment is scientifically acknowledged and the power of the mind (of the observer) to change outcomes is recognised.

So QM matters to you because you think it is magic. Okay...

Btw there is no "mind" factor in QM equations. QM happens independent of you and your mind.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: crowdedskies

Understanding quantum mechanics is like trying to unlock your car door with a pumpkin.

I'm glad you mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation, many pseudo philologists use the term without knowing it was schroedinger highlighting the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Thanks for your comment. Many confuse Schroedinger with The Copenhagen Interpretation when he was in fact tying to disprove it.

Having said that, I do not agree with Schroedinger on this specific point. There is a new level added in the Cat in the box scenario which does not exist in a measure of outcomes.

a reply to: moebius

Spoken like a true scientist.

It was meant to be an open discussion in a philosophy and metaphysics forum and there you go trying to debunk and disprove; taking every paragraph of my post and showing your discontent. Just your opening phase shows that you are on the attack instead of making a philisophical contribution.

There are many things that Science will never explain or even begin to understand.

It has always been a mystery to me why science rears its head in a "Philisophy and Metaphysics" forum.

I like Feynman's comment "I think we can safely assume that no one understands quantum mechanics."

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes, even though I do not get my ideas from youtube, I do find that video interesting. Thanks

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: crowdedskies
it is clear that all this inspiration and pioneering has been snuffed out by those who dare not venture into the unknown.

Nonsense. QM is doing fine. The progress we are making in material science and computing is incredible.

No it's not. Philosophical materialism is just a belief system no better than evangelical Christianity.



If the Universe is a giant computer simulation where or what is the computer like clock pulse? It seems to me the Universe is more analog than digital where everything is parallel happening all at once. The closest analogy of reality to a computer might be a race condition in an asynchronous sequential circuit. But even that does not capture the wave-like nature of reality where every piece of substance is connected to every other piece with on continuous, not discrete, wave of energy.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: crowdedskies

Next time you look at a card face down or throw a coin, consider that the result is indeterminate until you turn the card over or look at the dropped coin. Don't take the view of Schrödinger that the result has already been determined .

So I was writing a QBasic program to do coin tosses for the I Ching back in 1997. As long as the random generator was stand alone it did a good job of turning out random results.

But once I added the sub routine which used the random result to determine one of the 64 hexagrams it was no longer random. Three out of five results would come up with Creativity. Isolate again: random. Connect to hexagrams: not random.

Either the program was aware that I was creating it, or I was aware that I was creating the program.

I didn't read Philip Pullman's His Dark Matters books until 2008. In The Subtle Knife there is the explanation that I Ching functions like the alethiometer(golden compass).

Did you set the random seed generator by the timer? It is the only way to generate a relatively true random number. Otherwise, each time you called the random function, it would spit out the same results.

Try it coding in hex on a c64... we scratched our heads for months...

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: crowdedskies

Understanding quantum mechanics is like trying to unlock your car door with a pumpkin.

I'm glad you mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation, many pseudo philologists use the term without knowing it was schroedinger highlighting the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation.

I'm fluent in quantum mechanics.

Ask me a question... I'll disappear from reality, to reappear in the same spot, somewhere else entirely.

a reply to: crowdedskies
The composition of the atom is NOT what we are taught.
The "electron cloud" is not this confusing this or that, but a field of potential that is only SHAPE. Based on a cumulative resonance of itself, and in essence, is non-local.

Base 6 hexadecimal usage and vortex mathematics is the way. Screw all this old world interpretations and descriptions.
MATH needs to be re-written at it's core to take the next step in efficiency, simplicity, and productivity.

a reply to: gallop

Did you set the random seed generator by the timer? It is the only way to generate a relatively true random number. Otherwise, each time you called the random function, it would spit out the same results.

Yep. Set by the timer. Then I ran a new seed each time before calling the random function. I don't remember whether it was 3 coin tosses or 5 anymore. I don't have the book anymore and haven't even done I Ching since about 2000.

It was on a 386 running DOS 6.22. The QBasic that came with DOS 6.22 had the random seed generator based off the timer by default. For testing, I had a subroutine that printed out the results to screen, that would be used as result going to the hexagram choice array. REM OUT one subroutine or other; for testing or use.

ETA:

Try it coding in hex on a c64... we scratched our heads for months...

AHHH! The glory days of the 80s. Compute Magazine and Compute Gazette. I had a Vic 20. 64K RAM envy ran deep. Remap keyboard buffer to RAM, try to find somewhere to put the lines of code, woops, out of memory.

386: WOW! 640K Normal RAM, Upper and Extended RAM for drivers. Holy Moly! I can actually lay out a readable program! WITH REMARKS!!!

The most accurate random number generators are based upon hardware designed to measure random events in the environment and determine entropy. In Linux, the pseudo device file /dev/random interfaces with this part of the CPU and will block until sufficient entropy is harvested from the environment before spitting out a random number.

Other methods based upon pure software algorithms do not block, so they are really pseudo-random. Rapidly calling these routines, since they require a seed, can produce non-random outcomes when combined with multi-staged threads in a process. The complexity can produce a phase effect. These can be detected in a fourier transform.


There could be some people that have some innate ability to sense entropy and entanglement with objects. We would call them magicians and card sharks!