Quantum Physics says Good-bye to "Reality"

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor


I wonder if anyone was here measuring the "big bang" or if they are observing the sun undergoing fusion. That's right, nobody is. Yet it is happening nonetheless.

All depends on what you believe.I personally believe in a prime consciousness, so what you are saying doesn't ring true to me.



[edit on 30-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by liquidself
If background radiation had not been found, the big bang hypothesis would not have been created.

Exactly, and that is what I am saying. Nobody was around when the "big bang" happened, yet it still happened unawares or not.

not exactly...

The point I was making was that background cosmic radiation has been observed/measured , so that in a sense, the big bang has been observed. Theoretical physicists have deduced the event based on observation of the present- so how do you know it existed before the actual detection and measurement of cosmic background radiation? Perhaps these scientists fixed remote regions of space through observation by determining the approximate wave functional collapse of billions upon billions of quantum dynamical events? Traditional quantum mechanics as I understand it (which I admit may be not at all makes no determination at all of what is being measured as distinct from the measurement technique. The essential problem with reality is that it cannot be proven without using itself as a proof. Reality is always accepted on faith. All that is required to understand this is to have an extremely vivid dream - reality is based upon vividness.

Does the documentary "The Secret" tie in with QP?I watched it and basically it stated we can have and be anything we want,As long as we think hard enough about it .Somehow our thoughts make reality.I am just now starting to read up on QP ,so excuse my ignorance.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Does the documentary "The Secret" tie in with QP?I watched it and basically it stated we can have and be anything we want,As long as we think hard enough about it .Somehow our thoughts make reality.I am just now starting to read up on QP ,so excuse my ignorance.

From what I gather about "The Secret," it has more to do with positive thinking than with any type of scientific theories. I really don't know because I haven't watched it.

I must comment on Astyanax's approach to the subject. It would seem that they propose that scientists are a new form of honored mystic, similar to the position shamans or religious leaders have undertaken in the past.

Whereas others appear to be arguing that science may be reduced to understandable concepts for the majority of people.

It is due to note that some levels of rigidity are trained into scientists as they specialize, and most popularly the skepticism of anything spiritual or religious being an answer to anything.

The concept that consciousness effects reality is not necessarily religious, nor is it nonsensical in its proposal. What one needs to recall is that referential observations can also count, not necessarily merely anthropocentric considerations.

If I may ask, why exactly do Astyanax and Blue Bird feel that Subjective observation creating reality is such an unacceptable concept? Too religious or nonsensical?

Wow, we are coming to a time where technology is growing at an enormously fast rate. I believe that quantum physics is a path to a technology usually considered "magic" Kinda makes me hope to stay alive for a while.

Ok so iread some info about all this and some guy who is n\into objectism and science and quantum physics believe that even matter ie. elections, propergate as a wave until they interact with other quanti which collapses the wave function and make them a particle, which during the two split experiment observing the electrons does cause the electrons to interact with other quanti. This does make sense to me and seems more likely true, though i liked the idea of no reality exists unless being observed ;-P.

Though some reader said before its being measured there is no locality for it though.. and this objectivist said an experiment has proven something about the locality. Ie a wave does not have a fixed position or locality. ie a photon (light) does not have a fixed locality until it is absorbed and in the case of the electron (matter) two split experiment the same deal occurs. I think he's trying to explain that it's been it (locality) has been violated (i dont know if thats a good thing or not, right or wrong, yes or no).

If someone is able to explain this it would be HIGHLY appreciatted quite simply my mind is blwon a bit. First off i was thinking reality doesn't exist unless it's being observed whihc changed my whole thought mind process, then i read a bit more up on it thanks to fellows in this forum namely blue bird, and came accros this guy with a theory that sound correct thogh it is only a THEORY so keep that in mind.

Please help.

Thanks

www.thoughtware.com.au...

Originally posted by DaRAGE

First off i was thinking reality doesn't exist unless it's being observed whihc changed my whole thought mind process,

Well, that is somewhat the idea. Although, I think that it is important to keep in mind, although I am a supporter of quantum theory, that it is still just a theory. There is nothing now, and perhaps there never will be, to prove that its claims are conclusive.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Ok so iread some info about all this and some guy who is n\into objectism and science and quantum physics believe that even matter ie. elections, propergate as a wave until they interact with other quanti which collapses the wave function and make them a particle, which during the two split experiment observing the electrons does cause the electrons to interact with other quanti. This does make sense to me and seems more likely true, though i liked the idea of no reality exists unless being observed ;-P.

Though some reader said before its being measured there is no locality for it though.. and this objectivist said an experiment has proven something about the locality. Ie a wave does not have a fixed position or locality. ie a photon (light) does not have a fixed locality until it is absorbed and in the case of the electron (matter) two split experiment the same deal occurs. I think he's trying to explain that it's been it (locality) has been violated (i dont know if thats a good thing or not, right or wrong, yes or no).

If someone is able to explain this it would be HIGHLY appreciatted quite simply my mind is blwon a bit. First off i was thinking reality doesn't exist unless it's being observed whihc changed my whole thought mind process, then i read a bit more up on it thanks to fellows in this forum namely blue bird, and came accros this guy with a theory that sound correct thogh it is only a THEORY so keep that in mind.

Please help.

Thanks

www.thoughtware.com.au...

Basically what Little ( The Theory of Elementary Wave) is proposing ( and it is not widely,specially among quantum physicist, recognized) that there is no particle/wave duality: there is a particle and a wave.

That quantum wave is real and always present in the environment and is an elementary structure: in fact it acting, as much controversial aether.
Particle from the source just follow this waves. They are moving in reverse -carrying the information regarding the environment into which particle is moving.

This quantum waves are local, present all the time - not just when the particle is emitted. “The particle travels through only one slit. The wave goes through both slits. But the wave goes through first, setting up the interference, before the particle arrives. “ No wave collapse.


* for me the likeness of these quantum waves - // that are not waves in medium - but are medium ( they do not propagate according to dynamic of waves but propagate like “flux of material-carrying a wave implanted in“ // - to aether is somewhat troubling .

We know nothing about this possible “supstance“, and in fact Einstein dropped it after Michealson& Morley experiment effects of presence of aether was found.

* very little information on net also...

Don't know does if written help at all- but thank you much for the link...

They "say goodbye to reality" - doesn't that presuppose they said 'hi' to reality to begin with ?

They're naught but sci-fi writers with lab coats, sheesh

Amazing thread ... after reading all pages with most of the links I have to get some more hot tea and try to wrap my head arround all that .. I have to agree on one thing , QP is not logical and anybody who will try to see it through logic will fail or come to some very far fetched conclusions in order to explain it all ..

Originally posted by effinlunatic
They "say goodbye to reality" - doesn't that presuppose they said 'hi' to reality to begin with ?

Part of the problem is we don't really know what "reality" is.

Originally posted by blue bird

Only, there is nobody to observe the event... also Schrödinger cat EXIST in the box - dead or alive...

both half dead, and half alive

sorry i couldnt resist.......i love the thread by the way....

Originally posted by blue bird
This quantum waves are local, present all the time - not just when the particle is emitted. “The particle travels through only one slit. The wave goes through both slits. But the wave goes through first, setting up the interference, before the particle arrives. “ No wave collapse.

so....how come there is no interference pattern if the particle/wave is measured before it reaches the double slit?

does the wave aspect stop, and the particle continue?
and if so....then what?

[Removed accidental double post]

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Astyanax]

Yes physics is amazing.
But also physics states that energy not be destroyed but what happens to your body's energy when you die.

Subjective objection

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I must comment on Astyanax's approach to the subject. It would seem that they propose that scientists are a new form of honored mystic, similar to the position shamans or religious leaders have undertaken in the past.

Not at all. I was only suggesting that people who do not have specialist training and knowledge with regard to a particular subject should be cautious in making statements about that subject, because their understanding is likely to be flawed and their conclusions erroneous. Surely this is common sense.

I would never express opinions about the minutiae of open-heart surgery or lingerie manufacture, because I am neither a thoracic surgeon nor a clothier. Does that mean I regard thoracic surgeons and seamstresses as a 'form of honoured mystic'?

This hesitancy should apply in double measure to quantum mechanics, which bids fair to be the single most difficult subject there ever was.

The concept that consciousness effects reality is not necessarily religious, nor is it nonsensical in its proposal. What one needs to recall is that referential observations can also count, not necessarily merely anthropocentric considerations.

If consciousness affects reality, how does one distinguish between a 'referential observation' and an 'anthropocentric consideration'? The distinction becomes meaningless.

If I may ask, why exactly do Astyanax and Blue Bird feel that Subjective observation creating reality is such an unacceptable concept? Too religious or nonsensical?

Can't speak for Blue Bird, but for myself, I find the concept a bit too subjective. I would be happy to accept that subjective observation creates subjective 'reality', but this is only a projection of 'real' reality. It serves our purposes, but it is no more a complete apprehension of reality than that of a turtle or lancelet.

Besides, the adjective 'subjective' presupposes a subject and I am not at all sure that such a thing exists -- except, of course, in a subjective kind of way.

I must be getting old because none of this makes sense. Things are not really solid like my monitor but it's really a waveform when I'm not observing it? WTF?
How can this coke can in front of me be a waveform but yet I can touch it while not observing it such as closing my eyes?

reply to post by cloakndagger

Your understanding of the world comes from your senses.

Looking out of your window, you perceive the scene outside as an arrangement of shapes and colours, some bright, some dark, some stationary, some moving. That's your view of 'reality'. But shapes, colours, brightness and darkness don't have any real existence. They are ways in which your brain interprets the chemical signals from your retina, which are generated by the amplitude, frequency and direction of light falling on it. If your eye-brain anatomy and chemistry were different, the shapes, colours etc. you see would also be different. For example, dogs can't see the colours we can. Certain reptiles can see colours we cannot see -- I don't mean infrared and ultraviolet, but colours that are well within the range of frequencies our eyes can perceive. Their 'rainbow' would have more colours in it than ours.

Similarly, the sounds you hear, and the acoustic 'picture' of the world you make out of them, are determined by how your brain interprets the chemical signals generated from the vibrations of your eardrums. Given the same vibrations, a bat would hear something utterly different. Actually, if a bat had to hear with your ears or mine, it would think it had gone deaf.

Every solid body is mostly empty space. Yet it feels solid to the touch. This is because of interacting forces between its atoms, and between its atoms and yours, but it its solidity is an illusion.

And so on with every sense you possess.

Your flavour of reality depends the way you are made, or rather, the way you evolved. Another being, differently evolved, would perceive a different reality.

What you perceive and live in is a kind of abstract or projection of reality. As far as you're concerned for most day-to-day purposes, it might as well be reality; we act as if it is, and it doesn't usually make us look too foolish. But to believe that the ultimate reality -- whatever than may be -- is anything like what we perceive would be a mistake.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Astyanax]