Quantum Physics simplified

I was just thinking about the fact that there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics and not all of them suffer from the observer paradox. . . . who's to say that a paradoxical point like the observer is right anyway?

It's been my experience that paradoxical problems like the observer, or a better example would be tachyons, kill physical theories. Fatal flaws in logic are the usual cause of paradox.

I'm not saying that whichever interpretation is right, only that there is a good chance that it's wrong.

give this a look as it shows some detail about other more mundane interpretation

en.wikipedia.org...



it turns out that the most accepted interretations do not include an "observer effect". Its most likely just an illusion

[edit on 22-2-2010 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder


Thank you!

From


Looks like they want to prove the electron is a particle but
the ether waves keep on getting in the way.
Thats what must be the reason there is a random electron presence.

No PhD I'm afraid but a good degree in Physics from nearly 20 years ago.

Observing as usually described means the passing of information. So if partical A interacts with partical B and B gains imformation about partical A then partical A has been 'observed'. In most interpetations there is no need for a conscious observer, such as a human.

There are several current and published physicists on here, bhuddasystem and micpsi are ones I know of. I think masterP is also a physicist. Maybe they will happen by this thread and give a better answer than me.



[edit on 22/2/2010 by LightFantastic]

(not a phD)

M.C.Escher was fond of the quantum paradox, and the effects of perspective in general. one of his most profound drawings "Print Gallery (1956)", gives us insight on the role of the observer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/08c71c22c7c4fa60.jpg[/atsimg]


in this drawing is shown a system which self-recursively loops back and creates a paradox. a boy in a gallery looking at a painting of a town in which there is a gallery and a boy standing in that gallery looking at a painting of a town.......etc.

if you were to hypothetically jump into this system (or rather, the system from the perspective of itself) you would say that both of these concepts CANNOT be simultaneously true. (wave and particle is totally irreconcilable)

is it a boy and a picture? (particle)

or,

is it a town with a gallery? (wave)

but we, as observers of this drawing, are NOT in this system. we are OUTSIDE the system looking down upon it, and we can plainly see that both sides of the system are working together to give meaning and context to the other. it is kind of BOTH and NEITHER and ONE and the OTHER all at the same time.

________
still, there is a part of the drawing not given. the center is hidden.

this hidden portion is a remaining area of uncertainty (what's happening in there?). but it is only hidden from YOU, the observer. in other words, although the paradox can be resolved when observed from a higher perspective, there is a certain amount of information that can never be known to the observer because the observer's interaction with this portion of the drawing will render the drawing itself invalid.

this "uncertainty principle" is the closest that science has ever gotten to acknowledging consciousness or intelligence, the ghost in the system.

what happens behind the veiled portion is the magic.

but scientists dont like that very much (what is going on in there?!). they continue to search for smaller and smaller and smaller billiard balls to bang into each other, hoping that someday they can tear that veil down and have a little looksy up the skirt of "uncertainty".

nevertheless, at every level, all the way down and all the way up, uncertainty remains an inherent part of the system.

this same principle of uncertainty, on our own level of reality (the people level), tends to give us the impression that we, ourselves, are concious and intelligent, possessing our own volition. but even at a level which is directly observable to us as individuals, there are many people that wish to deny the uncertainty and claim "no such thing as free-will"....that all behavior is 100% deterministic and we are automatons (what is going on in there?!).

BUT!

just because I have begun to apply abstractions of quantum theory here in this post, i would caution you to be very wary of making such applications prematurely. you will be liable to anger someone and we will end up with another 15 page pissing contest.



best...

[edit on 22-2-2010 by tgidkp]

reply to post by LightFantastic

Thank you!

reply to post by Nichiren


Sure does explain the phrase....

"buckling under pressure"

Originally posted by tgidkp

BUT!

just because *I* have begun to apply abstractions of quantum theory here in this post, i would caution YOU (OP) to be very wary of making such applications prematurely. you will be liable to piss off someone smarter than you and we will end up with another 15 page pissing contest.

i am going to post this now without editing it because i am tired and rambling. if you got anything out of it at all, then you are smarter than i think you are.

best...

Is it something I've said that pissed you off? Since when is Science a pissing contest?

reply to post by Nichiren


no. but reading it back, i can see how you get that from what i wrote. i apologise.

since when is science a pissing contest? since forever.

Information is huge here. The wave becomes a particle only after an information transfer (like the poster above me said). But that information transfer is DECODED by our brains through a symbolic process. We keep thinking that they universe is laid out and objectively solid. It isn't. It's almost literally a computer that computes itself through a serious of information transfers that AWARENESS processes moment by moment.

In a sense, our universe is constantly being generated step by step like a computer simulation. I'm not saying that's what it *is*. I'm saying thats the best way to model it.

reply to post by tgidkp


LOL. I apologize, too.

Here is a spoiler. I just read that article. If this is true, every thing we know about QM is provisional and Einstein was right ...

Turns out that a particle CAN display both properties (particle and wave) at the same time! That is in total disagreement with "accepted" understanding of QM.

www.physorg.com...

I don't think you can isolate the electron.
The last video I posted is a deliberate lie.
You don't see spots like that.
One can only make a large amount available as with a
vacuum tube filament by heating a wire.
Then a high voltage propels the electron to a screen.
The first TV type tube proved the wave as a shadow was cast on the screen.
Instead of a object to make a shadow two slits block the path.
Because we can propel an electron with mass and charge with accurate
mathematics and it shows up a wave can't mean its a wave.
After all a wave has no mass or charge.
The big mystery was the wave result which had to dismissed without
the ether.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


So you are saying that the wave properties of light need an ether? What is it?

Originally posted by Nichiren
Thank you!

You are welcome! The fact is though that no-one can really define the observer exactly. Even though QM is one of the most successful theories there is still a lot to learn.

Originally posted by Nichiren
Turns out that a particle CAN display both properties (particle and wave) at the same time! That is in total disagreement with "accepted" understanding of QM.
www.physorg.com...

I believe that there was a mistake in his experimental design and his results have been explained.

Search for retrocausality for an even weirder double slit explanation.

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Search for retrocausality for an even weirder double slit explanation.

I think I stick to religion, that is simpler ...

Thanks for the link.

reply to post by LightFantastic

In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern reappears even if the which-path information is erased shortly after, in time, the signal photons hit the primary detector. However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion: never let a robot translate the manual ...

Can anybody translate that

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

So you are saying that the wave properties of light need an ether? What is it?

I would think so as a swarm of electrons push through the jumble of
of the gaseous ether the waves take over and the electron is lost
not only because we gave it momentum but its pushing a wave of ether.

Star light might work that way but there is evidence of particles
according to Tesla from the star Antarus that he measured on
earth going 50x the speed of light.

He has measured cosmic ray velocities from Antarus, he said, which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing, he contended, one of the basic pillars of the structure of relativity, according to which there can be no speed greater than that of light

tesla.hu...

So yes there are particle and wave characteristic of the electron.
Light or the photon is assumed to come from the electron jump
in the orbit of an atom.
Again I'd say the ether is a play in the transmission of light.

ED: The main play is against the ether and by use of Hertz waves is
that Tesla waves push the ether. So we pay attention to communication
waves and not mechanical - electric waves that go the speed of
light limited by the 'viscosity' of the ether.

Ed: The Cosmic 'Ray' is a particle.

[edit on 2/22/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 2/22/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by LightFantastic

 

Conclusion: never let a robot translate the manual ...

Can anybody translate that

Lol, I wonder how many times the author tried to clarify that paragraph.

Good old QM, the more you learn the stranger it gets!

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Hi
As I mentioned before, scientists have a way of holding on to theories long after their usefulness to explain the observable facts has evaporated. Sometimes new and fantastic properties are attributed to matter in order to hold on to theories which at first seem to make sense, but with time become more and more preposterous.
The Lumineferous Ether was one of these theories...

Another one is Johannes Kepler's "Circles within a Circle" theory. This theory came about to explain why Mars appears to move in the same direction as all the other planets, but then appears to stop and then reverse direction relative to the background stars. This is easily explained to day, but was a real head-scratcher for astronomers of old.

It is because of this human tendency to make up stuff to explain the unknown and the reluctance to accept new evidence which makes me think the strangeness of QM will be easily explainable in the future.

Regards