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.

 

Quantum Theory Observer, some questions

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
very true my frind.. one has to understand what one is asking..

why a tree? one would indeed need a forsest and to understand how the functions work in order to even ask the question why iin realation to the answer

Like i said if you ask the question.. you already infact know the answer!

the problem we have understandig (q)p) is we do not yet understand why it is WE ask the question.. this is going to be a the long standing question.. i understand (qp) as i have been studying it for best part of 20 years and im stil no closer to understandin the why..

In a way its better not to ask but understand.. if we infact observer (qp) then the path we take will always be the right path as its both logical and not

so the best way to forumulate the postulation is infact not to ask the question in the firstplace.


Infinity is a cracker
and (qp) is more about us than we think or care to take notice of in many regards.





posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ambushrocks
...philosophy called dialectics....


now i see where you are going with your "unbiased observer" question in the OP.

reality is inherently paradoxical. a tangled hierarchy of self-reference. like an escher drawing.





Originally posted by ambushrocks
...."it is essential to not judge anything"...


when you look at this drawing, you can judge it from two perspectives. GALLERY -> PORTRAIT, and CITY -> GALLERY. it seems impossible for these two perspectives to exist within the same frame of reference.

in order to interpret the drawing correctly, you must jump out of the system, and somehow simultaneously see both conflicting perspectives at the same time.

reality and consciousness interact in this same paradoxical way. unfortunately, most people in this world behave as though only one or the other perspective is "THE correct ONE".

they fail to see that the conflict, itself, is the essential part.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by tgidkp]

edits: because i can.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
...Is it possible that our planets are someone elses sub-atomic particles and that our sub-atomic particles are someones elses planets so to speak...?



this type of scenario, fantastic as it sounds, cannot be ruled out.


So the cycle has to break right?



well. if i may be so bold as to speculate.

the consciousness that determines the quantum state on one level is the SAME consciousness that determines higher and lower levels. the clincher is that each subjective level is "veiled" from the other levels.

in the escher drawing above, the veiled portion is the fuzzy white spot in the center. this spot separates the lower level of observation: the "ONE or the OTHER" mentality; from the higher level of observation: the "BOTH are the SAME" mentality.

this veil is what allows the observer to witness the paradox....and the paradox exists to make known the observer to itself.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


we are both thats the mad part.. our body is in order . but our mind is not infact out mind is the reason why are body is the shap it is and the sun..

we have many ways to show creation methord symmerty shapes ect

this infact IS life in all its glory fractals are just you body and the infinity aspect is the question we seek.. but if you ask you wont ever get the answer (qp) so we need to try and understand the question better not so much the answer as the question will always come befor the answer in that regard.. its very very complex..

This is my fav subject btw as it deals with our soul who we are and what it infact means to be alive in alot of ways "infact all ways i guess".

for me the question is important not the answer

what is our question? i dont know that yet but im going to try my best to figure that out.. took me 20 years to get to this point and so far right now i can say

The universe is alive.. that would be the only logical reason for pattens and "life" no matter what being you are.. life is a self replicating patten in itself but im not sure on what that basis is right now.. hopefully ill work it out or not! but its my passion to question the very question itself not the answer to what we seek

its alll about the question



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
....its better not to ask but understand.



DING! we have a winner.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 




2nd




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 

Wow what a great explanation... (it's a good thing I'm not a mod around here because I would be handing out applauses constantly to the contributors of this thread...lol)

I really like the comparisation with the esscher drawing... A great visual way to explain




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
this organizing principle is what is referred to as the "wave" in the wave/particle duality.


The 'wave-particle duality' indicates that sub-atomic particles exhibit behaviors, characteristic of waves, and particles --

Waves, because of their interference (constructive/destructive) - Which also intrduces the concept of Quantum Superpositions -, reflection, refraction, diffraction, and transmission.

The strongest support for the particle-like behavior is the photoelectric effect, discovered by Einstein (If I'm not mistaken, also merited, Nobel recognition), which revealed that a photon, if of sufficient energy, can distort or 'knock' an electron from an atom/substance, thus being 'particle-like'.

As such, sub-atomic particles exhibit a 'wave-particle duality'



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ChronMan
 

I'm trying to understand, but it's difficult since english is not my native language. I understand the duality part, but I don't understand the term refractive...



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ambushrocks
 


Ill try to explain this best i can. Its not so much us watching an object that causes its behavior to change. Sub atomic particles dont know there being watched and act differently,Whats happening is when some thing is observed were putting it in one spot in time and space. Particles can be anywhere any time. Best way i can explain that is Every possibility exists until we observe it then only one can exist. Nature cheats until a particle is observed it exists as a wave form not a particle,And its the interactions of the wave forms that produce what we see as a particle. Wow this is tough to explain.


That is a very good explanation. It matches what i would have posted.

From a standpoint of reality, this makes the most sense. If you have the computational power to process the probability functions, allowing for "anything" to exist" anywhere" until observed allows reality to flow more smoothly.

Imagine a VR system that allowed for this. It is what allows act of randomness to occur, and prevents the "drawing" or creation of unobserved events (thus wasting "bandwidth" and "memory" from the "Universal Wavefront").



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ambushrocks
reply to post by ChronMan
 

I'm trying to understand, but it's difficult since english is not my native language. I understand the duality part, but I don't understand the term refractive...


Refraction is the tendency of a wave to 'bend' when it changes boundaries/mediums - i.e., a wave which was produced in shallow water, will exhibit an observed 'bend' in its course, as the shallow water medium changes depth.

Refraction is what occurs, as a result of changes in an original medium.

Of course, for light, refraction almost always requires transmission.

Heres an illustration:

|
|
|
l\
l \

The point of 'bending', would represent refraction, which would indicate a change in the medium (Represented in the model as bolded points) - It is also possible to calculate the 'Refractive Index' which varies based on substance/relative change in medium, wave amplitude, and wave speed.

Understand?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
eheh this is like physics class 101


There is alot to take in, but its all a greater peace of the puzzle and its a great little thread to talk about such wacky goings on in our universe and beyond!

I hope alot of posts have helped you understand "or atleast try" to understand how confusing being alive infact is.



Just be aware most of what you read is only theory untill we can prove it


dont boggle you mind to much



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
hey dutch friend.

Maybe our brains are "meant" to perceive a portion of reality as a whole, and translating the energies around us into information that the brain can process, through our senses. It's like chewing meat so you don't suffocate.

There are a lot of things we don't know about the real brain capacities. 80 to 90% is the estimation of the capacity we don't use. But what if our brain, 10% or 40 or 60% "aware" , is not even capable of figuring out what he sees/smells/hears/touch/taste because it will mix different realities into one ?

it's like you have a Porsche with a 19th century early engine. ha!

maybe our brains were designed not to "know" too much, and our creator(s) are making jokes about us wondering why why why all the time



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattMulder
There are a lot of things we don't know about the real brain capacities. 80 to 90% is the estimation of the capacity we don't use. But what if our brain, 10% or 40 or 60% "aware" , is not even capable of figuring out what he sees/smells/hears/touch/taste because it will mix different realities into one ?


We use 100% of our brains.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The thing ive noticed about all of these replies and must disagree with is that they make you the person the observer. . . . this is not solely the case the observer can also be another particle or a molecule or a rock or a dog or a toe nail clipping. . . the observer could be anything that would interact with the particle in question. . . please find some real physics elsewhere to brush up your info with most of what ive read here is pseudo-science hooplah like "What the Bleep" (which is not a scientificaly backed interpratation of quantum physics. So please take it with a grain of salt my friend

[edit on 12-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


i take issue with your "what the bleep" comment. although we have wandered a bit into the philisophical/metaphysical interpretations, we are not on a flight of fancy. (that movie drives me nuts, also.)

apparently you are not well-versed enough in this area to distinguish a sound argument from silly mumbo-jumbo?

edited to add:

nice try, making a rock into an observer. (nomenon phenomenon) is the basic paradigm of the universe.

yes, there may be a long series of "observations" from toe-nails and so forth...but the final observer is always conscious. more specifically: YOU.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
The thing ive noticed about all of these replies and must disagree with is that they make you the person the observer. . . . this is not solely the case the observer can also be another particle or a molecule or a rock or a dog or a toe nail clipping. . . the observer could be anything that would interact with the particle in question. . . please find some real physics elsewhere to brush up your info with most of what ive read here is pseudo-science hooplah like "What the Bleep" (which is not a scientificaly backed interpratation of quantum physics. So please take it with a grain of salt my friend

[edit on 12-4-2009 by constantwonder]


Well then from your prospective, can you correct us and shine a bit more light on the subject? What is scientifically backed?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


dont you just love it when people come on here.. and chat a load of ___

We "meaning us" understand it well and are happy to talk and not put each other down as we are all just having a nice talk about the subject at hand.



I mean the toenail thing lol???? Im guessin he has no clue but felt like that we are stuck up little nerds or something ?? im not sure? but to use that argument is very silly indeed.

If you look at all the comments on here.. HIS is the only one that is infact argumentive based on what?

here is the cracker : Observation

I think hes a rock lol ; )) wah ah ah ha hehe



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


The thing ive noticed about all of these replies and must disagree with is that they make you the person the observer.

so hang on here, what or who is doing the observing??? this makes no sens?

are you saying you are a rock?

we only understand that what we see because we are the ones doing the observing

Or you infact wouldnt be making the "obervation" you currently are to formulate the opinion in order to post

now that aint physicis its just commen sens




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
unfortunately, friend, people in this forum have become quite wary of any thread with the word "quantum" in the title.

this is not without good reason. the movie "what the bleep" has ruined it for a lot of people. it has put lots of incorrect ideas into peoples heads which they then use as a flagpole for their own brand of crazy.

the only time i, personally, get involved with one of these threads is if i can manage to get my reply in on the first page. i am just as jaded as everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join