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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Within our studies we are the only observers. And we can only use the accuracy of the measurements we have obtained from past and present studies. Our time and measurements have to be fin tuned constantly. Because time or changes are changing on a variable and not at a constant speed.

Why is that well think of pressure it can never be constant even if it is isolated. Give it time and it will change. And when you have just one single change you will get a variable because the one change will effect the rest.

When i use a the term variable. I mean that every matter and energy has its own time cycle of changes. But it will vary on time or changes depending on the force or dimension it is effected by.

Everything has pressure unless it is a dimension of perfect vacuum. But then you have nothing. Well so far we can't say what matter a perfect vacuum consists of. Its just a state of unknown we dont even know if it exists.

I can probably add that the study of Quantum is a study of dimensions.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:28 AM
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]


I understand what you say, but I'm not looking for a what the bleep thing. What I'm looking for is a relationship between a philosophy called dialectic and quantum theory. I try to find out the relationship between the observer phenonema. Now although science and philosophy are 2 different areas they often touch each other at several points. A lot of science was born out of philosophy ideas, but also a lot of philosophy was born out of science.

In my begin post (if you have read it well) you can see that I state that the observer can be everything that measures the results.

However since I look for a relationship between dialectics and quantum theory I need to investigate the concious observer in this case.

Any way, please do not judge this post or the people contributing to it in a negative way. The posters in this thread have been really helpfull to me and their posts are much appreciated.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MattMulder
 


Thank you for your post. Although I agree with ChronMan that we use 100% of our brain, I'm also aware that there can be functions that are overlooked, hidden or not clear. In that perspective it is a possiblety that there's much more going on in our brains than we realise.

I like your sense of humor! The idea of creators looking down and laughing their *sses of is a thought I had myself...lol. (That thought developed when I was playing the sims...lol)



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ChronMan
 


Thank you very much for the explanation on refraction... Very clear and very well explained!!! I had heard the term before (and even ran into it in my photo editing software) but couldn't understand the meaning of it.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics

to detect an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron.


the observer in this case is a photon


In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring


in this case the observer is the volt meter

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)


tgidkp

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?


ok thats funny. . . my understanding is lacking uh huh i cant differentiate between what is science fact and what you pseudo-philosophers push as a fact.


The observer is herein studied as an aspect of laboratory physics. It is generally accepted that our status as observers is mediated by our material aspects: our body and brain. But, observers are typically equated with classical coordinate systems. An alternative, modelling the observer as a quantum entity, is considered. The corresponding transformations between two quantum observers affect the computed wavefunctions of other quantum entities in a physically meaningful manner.


www.iop.org...

wait whats that. . . the observer can be a quanta. didnt i say that already

there were particles before their was consiousness. . . you do not need consiousness to be the "observer"


To make their quantum/mystic interaction work, it is necessary to set up a link between quantum functions at a sub-atomic level and human consciousness on a macroscopic scale, which they largely do by wilfully misunderstanding the observer effect, the idea in quantum physics that the outcome of any quantum interaction remains in a state of indeterminacy until “observed”, at which point the wave function collapses and the interaction resolves itself down to a definitive solution. What the Bleep treats this as if it needs a consciousness to interact with it, which is not the case, then extrapolates from this to the idea that consciousness can actively influence reality, and provides some priceless examples of “research” to back this up. We get a run-through of the ‘Maharishi Effect’, by which concerted transcendental meditation (TM) by a team of 4,000 Maharishi followers supposedly lowered the Washington DC crime rate by 25% for a month. Except the murder rate increased


www.nthposition.com...

yes im bringing up what the bleep again. . . i dont care what you all think about the film the point is your treatig the observer the same way and its incorrect to do so.



in conclusion tgidkp the next time you want to insult someone for trying to inject some facts into your pseudoscience fantasy perhaps you should understand what your talking about first





[edit on 13-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


i dont see your point here??

ok thats funny. . . my understanding is lacking uh huh i cant differentiate between what is science fact and what you pseudo-philosophers push as a fact

please tell me what a pseudo philotwtf is please that "we" push as fact?

you are relating phyics in order ot explanin (qp)?

were is ur rational arguement??

We are the observers? you first argument was that a rock or an atom can or is the observer correct?

so who is obversig who? you argument is flawed why? well your ar using facts based on the obervation of man? correct?

please i await ur responce i wont be so kind the next time i post.

my inerterlect vs your total miss understanding of the topic .. please bring it on.

It would make me even more happy to Educate you and as for that witty comment you made..

pathetic



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
no need to waste space...

point is..

We are the observer and no witty comments you make or facts you try to present will change it why?

who made the so called facts you are posting?

HUMANS

we are ALWAYS the observer duh...

and like i said in my first post im happy to go toe to toe with u on this..

20 years vs one post mmm what are the odds? lol

epic fail


[edit on 13-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
your right were always the observer quantum mechanics were in a complete state of decoherance before man came along to measure it.

your scathing and insulting posts bore me they show your lack of intellegance and help to ruin the science forums

let me make this perfectly clear for you

the universe was the universe before man could measure it quantum interactions were taking place long before your consiousness

THE OBSERVER IS ANYTHING THAT MAKES A CHANGE IN A PHYSICAL SYSTEM IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONSIOUS TO DO THIS

i will not engage in a mud slinging fest with you so please drop your insulting tone and demonstrate some intellegance post some info with some references that says humans are the sole observer. . . then i will be more than glad to counter you but i will not fling insults back and forth this is a forum for scientific discussion not childish rants



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


please...

your right were always the observer quantum mechanics were in a complete state of decoherance before man came along to measure it.

read your own comment

please dont u2u me bull# please read your own statement...

how can one NOT be the observer? you are talking abut atoms ?? who is obsevering the atoms?

keep it coming im happy to educate you and the dunce you commented in your defence




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I u2u as to not hijack a thread over our disagrements.

I never said that a person cannot be an observer i said the observer does not have to be a person

yeah im talking about atoms im talkingf about quanta im talking about anything that can interact with any physical system.

when anything interacts with a system it becomes an observer

why are you trying to start a flame war here this isnt politics its science. I do the research i do the reading i ask the questions.

i dont see you educating anyone on anything other than bad grammer worse tempermant and atrocious understaning of the subject matter

you havent given a single fact you havent presented any evidence you just insult and tell me im wrong

i cant decide if im more offended by your mouth or your understanding of the observer effect

i will not reply to anymore of your baiting after this.

If you really really really want me to destroy you in a debate about the observer effect please see your way over to the public fiight club pub and issue a challenge im sure memoryshock, semperfortis, or one of the other debate mods would be more than glad to set it up.

These boards arent the place for combative arguments with no facts and nothing but your hoighty attitude and lack of understanding

[edit on 13-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
ok

lets not make this a hate thread...


These boards arent the place for combative arguments with no facts and nothing but your hoighty attitude and lack of understanding


so what facts do you produce? a comment? from whome? some random twit? not a comment you can make?

Is that a cop out? hm please i wish to understand you own logic.. you see if you go back to the very start YOU are the only one to infact make the argument...

why?

well YOUR lack of understanding of the very subject matter.. its based on quatuom physics NOT newtonion physics.

so please do one of two things CONTRIBUTE or wirte a paper on your own theases on the subject ok?

and dont post TOSH in your evidence based on your own OPINION together wraped with some other dumbass as your evidence

get it?

there is no RIGHT AND WRONG in this thread so i dont know what you are trying to prove here other than you OWN lack of the subject and interpritation of the thread.

If you dont like it DONT READ IT.. we are all happy to talk about the subejct other than YOU

Going by your mathmatical logical reasons WE are infact correct and YOU SIR are wrong

... keep it coming im bored and i have a 20 year old stick ill be happy to measrue you with..



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
ok

lets not make this a hate thread...


These boards arent the place for combative arguments with no facts and nothing but your hoighty attitude and lack of understanding


so what facts do you produce? a comment? from whome? some random twit? not a comment you can make?


I listed the sources of my information in my post. . . some random twit lmao did you even read my posts or the listed sources. . . i have my doubts that you did


Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
well YOUR lack of understanding of the very subject matter.. its based on quatuom physics NOT newtonion physics.


here you are wrong again all the info i have posted corresponds to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (based on the work of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg) theres nothing newtonian about it.

Yes scientifc instruments and what they measure (position, momentum, etc) considered classical physics but this is not the point. the point is "instruments and/or their operators" are not the sole observer anything that makes a change in a system no matter what it is becomes an observer.


Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
so please do one of two things CONTRIBUTE or wirte a paper on your own theases on the subject ok?

and dont post TOSH in your evidence based on your own OPINION together wraped with some other dumbass as your evidence


What is it that you have contributed. . . hmm nothing but personal conjecture and opinion. What did i contribute hmmm verifyable facts on the subject based on scientific evidence

and again your judgemental tripe and use of expletives shows your intellegance


Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
there is no RIGHT AND WRONG in this thread so i dont know what you are trying to prove here other than you OWN lack of the subject and interpritation of the thread.

If you dont like it DONT READ IT.. we are all happy to talk about the subejct other than YOU

Going by your mathmatical logical reasons WE are infact correct and YOU SIR are wrong

... keep it coming im bored and i have a 20 year old stick ill be happy to measrue you with..


Obviously im more than glad to talk about it or i wouldnt be here. So you used mathematics to determine that your illogical nonsensicle unbacked totalyy personaly biased opinion is right above mine. . . awsome can i have your formula so i can mathematicaly prove when im right and all others are wrong?

you say there is no right or wrong on this thread then you judge me to be wrong. . . contridiction. no?

im not here to prove or disprove anything i posted what i knew and could verify so that the OP could formulate an opinion based on more than just the opinion of a few posters. I posted some scientific facts about the "observer effect" to help in the process

seriously arrange a formal debate and we'll let our skill knowledge and research ability speak for itself



[edit on 13-4-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
CUE STANDARD MOD SPEECH

Hi People,

Its great to see heated debate/discussion....as its through fleshing out our arguments/stances that we can either strengthen them or see a need to modify or even discard them.

However...
1. Civility is always a bonus. Please lets keep the more nsarky sidejabs out of our engagements with eachother.

2. Constant back and forth discussion/debate can sometimes run the risk to meandering the intended topic of a thread off course.


Just a gentle reminder.


Cheers people.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


WHOA! there kids, settle down.

constantwonder: you came in here attempting to position yourself above the befuddled masses. thus forcing the rest of us to take a defensive stance.

i have found myself in the position to do the same thing on these boards many times. but i have always found myself considering the fact that, most times people do not want a greater understanding. posting in such a thread is only going to cause a problem.

i conceded your "toenail is an observer" point earlier. i have no problem with that.

i DO have a problem with being called a pseudo-philosopher. make no mistake: i know of that which i speak. i do my very best to make sure that the information i post is top-notch and accurate. coming into this thread and calling me (and the others) a hack is a reflection of you not me.

that is the end of this back and forth. no more.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Mod Edit: Please reread, and heed, THIS REPLY above. Cheers -alien

Mod Edit Part2 - Also, please don't edit Mod Edits. If you have a query, then u2u the Mod appropriate, which you have done (and I am sending you a reply asap), or alternatively utilise the Complain/Suggestion link in your Member Centre or click the Alert Button on this reply to send a request for a review. Cheers, sending you a u2u to explain shortly. -alien

[edit on 13-4-2009 by alien]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


i just want to correct myself here..

I said our undersdanting of (qp) is based on newtonion psy when my english is infact piss poor... sorry

The reason for our understanding of (qp) is infact coz of (NL) ect

I just wanted to make that clear.. yes my english sucks butt but i know wtf im thinking ok?

sorry
befor some people use that against me ;/ "as they often do"



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ambushrocks

From what I understand the oberserver is the one that measures the results. It doesn't require to be a concious being, a microscope or any other measurment instrument qualifies as an observer too. (am I correct so far?)

Observing requires some form of interaction an thus a waveform collapses to a particle as soon as the interaction is done... (still correct?)


If you want to consider this dialecticly then it would depend on which interpritation of the Observer Effect you subscribe to Superposition or quantum entaglement. The superposition idea seems to not fit into the dialectic principle that gradual changes lead to turning points. Superpostion implies instantaneous change in a system where as quantum entanglement implies that there is no super postion but instead everything is interconeccted in one massive quantum entagled system.

Every change is influenced on one level or another by every other quantum event or change from the macro to the micro and in this case all observation is relative to position in the system as well as your proximity to other shifting perameters.

In this case waveform collapse is defined by probability of individual quantum events and the actions of the observer. The complexity of the system only increases the number of probable outcomes and simplicity is lost.

This is an interesting philisophical ideal. It seems to imply that objective reality is completely subjective and relative. It feels very anthropic. Its all meaningless without observation



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


all obsevations are made by YOU / humans

stop qouting people.. understand the question

WHO IS ASKING

dont you get that? there is NO proton NO nuetron NO electron NO nothing with out US

we are the apex of observation

stop reading total *SNIP* please..


Mod Edit: No need for foul language. Cheers -alien

[edit on 13-4-2009 by alien]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
uhm isnt that what i just said

i said its a very anthropic idea. Anthropic reasoning is a philosophy that says its all meaningless without us to observe it

i try and look at what the OP said with a bit more philisophical view and still you continue your attack.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by alien]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


quantum entanglement is a more accurate description of dialectics re:QM.

Brion Gysin and William Burroughs discussed dialectics in terms of the "third mind". that is to say that when two people interact with one another, the interaction of their minds creates a third, superior cognitive intelligence. this third mind the controlling entity of the interaction between the two individual minds.

the third mind concept can be extended indefinitely into super-conscious entities.

in terms of subatomic particles, the third mind is the smallest physical unit: the atom.

in this way, reality is manifested by an interaction of top->down AND bottom ->up....and humans find themselfs right smack in the middle.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by tgidkp]

[edit on 13-4-2009 by tgidkp]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join