Superpositioning: Matter Watches Us Watch It

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   





Tracing the limits of quantum weirdness
13 September 2006
Mark Buchanan



Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits what we can know about the quantum world. Now the uncertainty principle is being harnessed to see if it is possible to identify a point at which matter begins to exhibit weird quantum behaviour.

According to the uncertainty principle, measuring the position of an object always disturbs its momentum in an unpredictable way. Physicists ordinarily see this so-called "back action" as a nuisance, but a team led by Keith Schwab of the University of Maryland, College Park, decided to put it to good use.

Source

This stuff is just amazing to me. I love quantum physics...Love it,love it,love it.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
So, are they implying outerspace is studying us back, and that it has characteristics of intelligence being of a sentient being or creature?

I'm lost if that is not even close...


Advisor to linguistics dept, translation needed in forum 22 please.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
So, are they implying outerspace is studying us back, and that it has characteristics of intelligence being of a sentient being or creature?

I'm lost if that is not even close...


Advisor to linguistics dept, translation needed in forum 22 please.


Well, what it does imply,I don't know if you read the entire article, is that when we are viewing an object's particles they heat up. Therefore, it would seem that on some level they know they are bing watched.

The whole "superpositioning" thing is the idea that objects are in more than one place until we view them. So, in a sense the object knows that it's being viewed so it selects a uniform position.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Groan... Subscribtion is needed to read the whole article. I'll have to see if they sell "New scientist" here on Aruba. Or use my credit card, which I don't want to do.

But apparently they're talking about matter reacting to the experiments in a sentient way?? Do I understand it correctly??



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
But apparently they're talking about matter reacting to the experiments in a sentient way?? Do I understand it correctly??


Right on!!


[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I don't understand the end of the article (the rest seems reasonable).

They mention the temperatures required are "beyond conventional technology" but they don't say if they are waiting for technology to catch up to attain these temperatures, or if this device offers a way to achieve them.

300mK is not beyond conventional technology anyway.

Nice idea though.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
That is what I thought, so our means of viewing by either IR, laser and other spectrums has caused some form of reaction out there.


GREAT! Now I completely have a reason to believe in galactic warming...

Beastie boys any one:
Galactic inter galactic...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut
I don't understand the end of the article (the rest seems reasonable).

They mention the temperatures required are "beyond conventional technology" but they don't say if they are waiting for technology to catch up to attain these temperatures, or if this device offers a way to achieve them.

300mK is not beyond conventional technology anyway.

Nice idea though.


Well, as "The Bandit" stated, you have to have a subscription to read the entire article.Ummm, so I would venture to guess that "beyond conventional technology" is not exactly the end of the story. I am sure that the article, at least somewhere, qualifies the statement. I would hope so....

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
That is what I thought, so our means of viewing by either IR, laser and other spectrums has caused some form of reaction out there.


GREAT! Now I completely have a reason to believe in galactic warming...




It would seem to entail that,yes... Of course, from ancient times to now, we have had the idea that on some level all matter had a consciousness. Now that "consciousness" is very apt to be entirely different than our own, but it is there nonetheless.

"Consciousness" in the quantum world could be something as simple as particles relaying information from one to another. Whereas, consciousness in human terms is not only relaying information but creating new information via the information we have already received. You see the difference?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Hehe, SpeakeroftheTruth... you got one tiny thing wrong.

It IS True that when you observe a particle, you add energy - but this is the Tragedy of the Observer. It's not that the OBSERVER inputs the energy without knowing it, it's that TO observe, energy is required.

So, take an electron.

Let's say we want to observe where it is. So we look at it.

That's all grand - however, in order to look at it, we have to send a photon of light (or anything that can carry information) to the electron.

When that photon hits the electron, it gets excited, momentarily changes its direction or speed or whatever, and then releases a photon of its own back towards us.

What we see then is NOT the electron that we wanted to see, but rather this "excited" electron that was changed by the photon we sent to observe it.


So it doesn't know that it's being watched, it's just that to watch it, we have to change it.


This is why it's impossible to detect Absolute Zero (0 Kelvins). In order to detect it, to observe it, we have to send some information to it. This adds energy to it, and it no longer is Absolute Zero when it sends the information back (although it might change back to Absolute Zero again very soon).

Now, I couldn't read the article because of where I am, and as mentioned - a subscription is necessary for everything, so I don't want anything left out, but what I've said is based on what's been said in this topic so far.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium

When that photon hits the electron, it gets excited, momentarily changes its direction or speed or whatever, and then releases a photon of its own back towards us.



Well, doesn't the process of that electron getting "excited" suggest that it is,at least on some level, aware that something is going on?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Hehe, SpeakeroftheTruth... you got one tiny thing wrong.

It IS True that when you observe a particle, you add energy - but this is the Tragedy of the Observer. It's not that the OBSERVER inputs the energy without knowing it, it's that TO observe, energy is required.

So, take an electron.

Let's say we want to observe where it is. So we look at it.

That's all grand - however, in order to look at it, we have to send a photon of light (or anything that can carry information) to the electron.

When that photon hits the electron, it gets excited, momentarily changes its direction or speed or whatever, and then releases a photon of its own back towards us.

What we see then is NOT the electron that we wanted to see, but rather this "excited" electron that was changed by the photon we sent to observe it.


So it doesn't know that it's being watched, it's just that to watch it, we have to change it.


This is why it's impossible to detect Absolute Zero (0 Kelvins). In order to detect it, to observe it, we have to send some information to it. This adds energy to it, and it no longer is Absolute Zero when it sends the information back (although it might change back to Absolute Zero again very soon).

Now, I couldn't read the article because of where I am, and as mentioned - a subscription is necessary for everything, so I don't want anything left out, but what I've said is based on what's been said in this topic so far.


Right on.

That is why the biggest breakthrough in physics would be when we are able to tap in the extra dimensions of our universe: then we would be able to observe matter without disturbing it...and then many things are gonna change.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Right on.

That is why the biggest breakthrough in physics would be when we are able to tap in the extra dimensions of our universe: then we would be able to observe matter without disturbing it...and then many things are gonna change.


Speaking of which, read this. It's rather interesting www.fulldisklosure.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, doesn't the process of that electron getting "excited" suggest that it is,at least on some level, aware that something is going on?


Not at all. "Excited" simply means that the higher temperature has changed the way the electron acts (as described by physical laws).

It's like when two magnets are close together - neither are aware of each other, but Physical Forces cause the molecules to move towards each other. Perhaps the terminology has confused you with the emotion of Excitment instead of the physics terminology.

From Wikipedia:

In the physical world temperature is indicative of the level of excitation.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
When observing an electron, is it just light that causes it to change? If so, we need a way to observe it in total darkness with no photons present! Do electrons emit any detectable force even a 0 Kelvins? They have mass don't they? Someone needs to build a 3D electron mass detector



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Technically, Toasty, you are right!

Realistically, though, it wouldn't work.

Electrons have mass, yes, but it's so tiny, it's almost non-existant. A neutron is mass 1.6749 × 10-27 kg, whilst the electron is a miniscule 9.109 3826(16) × 10−31 kg (so about 1/1000th of the mass)...

... which, by no coincidence, is the difference in mass between a neutron and a proton (1.6726× 10−27 kg) - considering that, literally, a neutron is a proton with an electron squeezed into it, making it electrically "neutral".

So, the electron is miniscule, to say the least. Plus, it moves - constantly - at nearly the speed of light. Because of this, even if you find out where it is, by the time you know, it's somewhere else.

Even worse, at the distances and masses involved, it will be an impossibility for such a precise machine to exist for any time in near future.


But, yeah, mass does appear to be the only thing that can be detectable at 0 Kelvin...

Problem when you consider gravitation in the equation though. Gravity will then give the mass that's at 0K either potential or kinetic energy... raising it's temperature above 0K.

It always goes back to the laws of the Game of Thermodynamics:

1. No matter what, you can't win at the game (it's impossible to have over 100% conversion of energy).
2. Heck, you can't even break even (some energy is always lost in the form of heat or other energy, so 100% conversion is impossible).
3. The only way to break even is on a very cold day (at 0K, you can actually achieve 100%).
4. But it never gets that cold (either impossible to reach, or impossible to detect, 0K).

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Yarium]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The article is now available to non-subscribers: Tracing the limits of quantum wierdness



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Ah! I see now.

Essentially, they're trying to find the limit of where we can't tell if something is "here nor there" without disturbing it significantly.

This resonator has something of a "feedback" that happens when there's too much energy being directed at observation. By finding the point that they can no longer tell what's going on with the feedback device, that's the temperature/energy amount at which sending a signal to an electron or the like won't impact how it functions (finding how small a stick you need to not cause ripples in the lake, so to speak).

Notice that the temperature is in the "millikelvins" - meaning that it's just fractions above 0 Kelvin (that point where 100% energy conversion is possible). I'm not surprised that the two are related.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Since we can't get around Heisenburg, then why not cheat? Use the Top-Down model of figuring something out(reverse engineering).

Take the final observation of the "excited" subatomic substance and work your way backwards, always checking your math with the finished product(the excited photon or whatever).

We may not be able to see quantum wierdness at work first hand, femtosecond by femtosecond, but we may be able to cobble together a mathematical framework of how everything works down there based solely from our view from on-high.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by masterp

Right on.

That is why the biggest breakthrough in physics would be when we are able to tap in the extra dimensions of our universe: then we would be able to observe matter without disturbing it...and then many things are gonna change.


Speaking of which, read this. It's rather interesting www.fulldisklosure.org...


Yeap, I am waiting for this experiment with high anticipation.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join