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.

 

Science tells us that matter/energy may be pixels of information

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Of course you have to laugh because you don't understand what you're talking about.

So go and find some more stuff to cut and paste out of context and I will correct the ignorance when you're done.




posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
See what I mean folks?

He'll continue along this unintelligent diatribe till he craps leprechauns and pisses rainbows.

But let us not forget... He is vastly more intelligent than what those idiot scientists are really saying! I mean Jesus Christ ... The cat paradox was explicitly mentioned to NOT depict reality in any way whatsoever and this buffoon pretends it does irregardless of a direct quote.

It's kind of hard to argue with the blind deaf and dumb.

Good luck to the rest of you, he made my point loud and clear!


Well hang on - do you not believe that these test haven't been done. Do you not believe that your life is reliant on the quantum world.

How do you suppose we start and stop at the lights, or how a bar code works. This list is extensive.

We each operate individually at the quantum level, my decision to reply to you is my decision and so to is your reply. That is, your reply could be many things including not replying but its still my decision. Its weird for sure.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I think its easy to see how this is all a big game of some kind. I've often thought that the big bang was nothing more than the machine booting up. The 300,000 years (to us) was just a blink as the variables were calculated to perform and produce what we think are particles.

Its almost like the electron is to perfect to have been produced by accident - more like manufactured.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You truly don't know what you're talking about. You said:


The cat paradox was explicitly mentioned to NOT depict reality in any way whatsoever and this buffoon pretends it does irregardless of a direct quote.


LOL, this is too funny.

The Schrodinger thought experiment is talking about superposition. Are you saying superposition doesn't occur???????

Schrodinger was saying that quantum mechanics is too absurd to be talking about reality and his thought experiment was designed to show how absurd it is. Sadly experiment after experiment confirms quantum mechanics and many people can't accept what it says about the nature of reality but I don't have a problem with it and most idealist I talk to don't have a problem with it. I can understand why materialist would have a problem with it because quantum mechanics turns their worldview into nonsense.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by majestictwo
I think its easy to see how this is all a big game of some kind. I've often thought that the big bang was nothing more than the machine booting up. The 300,000 years (to us) was just a blink as the variables were calculated to perform and produce what we think are particles.

Its almost like the electron is to perfect to have been produced by accident - more like manufactured.




Good points and this is exactly where quantum mechanics and information theory leads us. The problem is, people don't want to accept it because it goes against a materialistic worldview.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Couple of more thoughts and or questions....

I think the clue to pursue is the smallest known measurement...Planck Length....Zoom in to see what is between the pixels...manipulate the resolution.

Also, where do the two beams of light originate? What energy is behind the beams of light?

Lastly....say I am a real living character that can choose any number of options....are these permutations already coded statically, or are they dynamically coded?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



out of context


Explain the "true" context in these two statements.


the observer need not be a conscious observer.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse

I had a more intelligent conversation with a brick the other day.


Wake up Neo, your version of reality rests upon illusory concepts that don't exist.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Still waiting for you to answer my question from this post.

You assert that an observer can choose which measurement will occur.

How?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
....this buffoon pretends....



as a passive reader of this thread, i find your tone incredibly offensive. you have made this thread a displeasure to read. you deserve a post ban for your words quoted above. mods have been alerted.


in spite of your own hard-headed comprehension of this subject, the OP has not made any glaring mistakes. he may not be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction, but that does not mean that he is wrong. you continue to refer to him as "uneducated" and living in a fantasy.....but i have seen far far worse offenses against quantum mechanics in these boards.



calm down.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



the OP has not made any glaring mistakes.


Great, you also dismiss direct quotations as well from the science and scientists themselves?

And people wonder why they get observed as being buffoons.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I asked you to stop polluting my threads with your nonsense. You don't understand what your talking about and you just cut and paste things out of context. You butchered information theory in my last thread and looked silly and now your doing the same thing with Schrodinger.

Let's quote the parts that you left out:


Schrödinger's thought experiment was intended as a discussion of the EPR article, named after its authors — Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen — in 1935.[2] The EPR article had highlighted the strange nature of quantum superpositions. Broadly stated, a quantum superposition is the combination of all the possible states of a system (for example, the possible positions of a subatomic particle). The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition undergoes collapse into a definite state only at the exact moment of quantum measurement.

Schrödinger and Einstein had exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein had pointed out that the quantum superposition of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain both exploded and unexploded components.

To further illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger applied quantum mechanics to a living entity that may or may not be conscious. In Schrödinger’s original thought experiment, he describes how one could, in principle, transpose the superposition of an atom to large-scale systems of a live and dead cat by coupling cat and atom with the help of a "diabolical mechanism". He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death was dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.


en.wikipedia.org...

You read:

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse

You then ran back here and you cut and pasted this and it was out of context. This is because you don't understand the history of quantum mechanics.

Schrodinger never denied superposition, the whole debate was about quantum mechanics and things like superposition being a true description of reality. This is why Einstein and others came up with the EPR Paradox and Einstein said,"God doesn't play dice."

So Einstein, Schrodinger and others felt there had to be a link that connected the two states. So Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment that was designed to say superposition is too absurd to be the true nature of reality.

Over the years quantum mechanics has been confirmed in experiment after experiment and technologies from quantum mechanics make up up to 30% of our GDP.

Schrodinger and others didn't think superposition was a serious description of reality but he never denied superposition, he and others just thought there had to be more because quantum mechanics was too absurd to be a true description of reality.

Again, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

To a person who supports idealism, quantum mechanics makes perfect sense.


First quantum effects seen in visible object

Aaron O'Connell and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara, did not actually produce a cat that was dead and alive at the same time, as Erwin Schrödinger proposed in a notorious thought experiment 75 years ago. But they did show that a tiny resonating strip of metal – only 60 micrometres long, but big enough to be seen without a microscope – can both oscillate and not oscillate at the same time. Alas, you couldn't actually see the effect happening, because that very act of observation would take it out of superposition.

The key was to connect the resonating strip to a superconducting qubit – a tiny electric circuit that can easily be prepared in a quantum superposition of two energy states. "The qubit acts as a bridge between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds," says O'Connell. By tuning the frequency at which the qubit cycled between its two states to match the resonant frequency of the metallic strip, the qubit's quantum state could be transferred to the resonator at will.

Schrödinger's cat would be unlikely to survive the frigid temperatures of such experiments, so it is perhaps not the next milestone to look out for. But now the spooky influence of quantum physics on visible objects has been proved, can we expect to be putting an object as large as a real child's swing into an indeterminate quantum state any time soon? O'Connell thinks so. "I'd say in the near future – in the next 20 years."


www.newscientist.com...

This takes us back to qubits but you already showed that you don't understand or subscribe to information theory. You also don't subscribe to Einstein, Quantum mechanics or theoretical physics.

Sadly you want to debate without understanding so you pollute thread after thread with your nonsense.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Its not often you come across a thread that give you great interest. This one does so please don't give up just ignore your "thread polluters" as you describe them.

Moving on....
In your thread where you posted "First quantum effects seen in visible object"

This is what we have always suspected and now its been measured its becoming quite scary. The theory has now been proven by laboratory measurement although I would like to see more experiments from other labs. I am sure this will happen in a flurry and will lead to the next step.

The resonating strip experiment is fine and in some ways is a big a turning point as the double slit experiment. I wish I could predict the next turning point.

This stuff is truly fascinating

MJ2



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Ok, I may be dense, but explain to me why choice has to be happening? Why could this not be a deterministic universe a la Spinoza?

Yes, go on Matrix, let's hear your response to that.

*



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Originally posted by sirnex
 


The cat paradox was explicitly mentioned to NOT depict reality in any way whatsoever and this buffoon pretends it does irregardless of a direct quote.

The Schrodinger thought experiment is talking about superposition. Are you saying superposition doesn't occur???????

Not with cats.



I can understand why materialist would have a problem with it because quantum mechanics turns their worldview into nonsense.

I am a materialist who studied quantum mechanics as part of my formal education. I fail to see how anything in quantum mechanics turns my worldview into nonsense.

Oh, but please, don't bother explaining; you've done so often enough already, and always failed to convince. All you ever succeed in communicating is how little you understand of the subjects on which you pretend to expertise.

Instead, just answer Illusionsaregrander's question above. Or the question LordBucket asks in this post.

Come on, then; show us how smart you really are.

*



Originally posted by majestictwo
Well hang on - do you not believe that these test haven't been done. Do you not believe that your life is reliant on the quantum world.

Nobody ever put a cat in a box with a random-impulse generator and a flask of poison gas, or any equivalent thereof. The OP seems to think a cat can actually exist in superposed states of life and death inside a box. That's the level of her understanding of quantum mechanics.


Originally posted by sirnex
they were showing that QM is INCOMPLETE, as in DOES NOT describe reality sufficiently.

Precisely. Well pointed out, sirnex. You and I disagree often, but we're brothers in thought compared to what is being peddled here.

I think the point deserves to be stated in bold type:

The paradoxes of quantum mechanics point to imperfections in our understanding of reality. They do not alter that reality.

[edit on 20/6/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




just answer Illusionsaregrander's question above.
Or the question LordBucket asks in this post.


My angle is pretty simple: I don't really benefit in any way from convincing him of anything. But if his view turns out to be correct...well then, suddenly my entire life changes for the better. And I'm ok with that.

Just as soon as he explain to me how to consciously choose the manner in which the wave function collapses, as he insists that I, as an observer, am able to do.

I'm still waiting.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You really make yourself look bad because you don't know what your talking about.

Schrodinger never denied superposition.

Again, you took the quote out of context. Where did Schrodinger ever say superposition doesn't occur?

Schrodinger and others thought it was incomplete because they thought it was too absurd to explain the nature of reality.

You don't know the history of quantum mechanics and this is why you don't understand what you're talking about. Have you ever read the debate between Neils Bohr and Einstein? We understand more about quantum mechanics today then they did back then, so it's natural that they would ask these questions.

Years have passed since then and year after year and experiment after experiment quantum mechanics has been confirmed. Technologies from Quantum Mechanics make up close to 30% of the GDP.

My point is, it is not too absurd and it does explain the nature of reality. Materialist can keep hope alive and keep looking for that hidden variable or missing link between quantum mechanics and classical physics but there isn't one.

Both microscopic and macroscopic objects exhibit superposition. Superposition is harder to detect in macroscopic objects because of decoherence. In microscopic objects, it's easier to detect because microscopic objects can travel for long periods of time without interacting with their environment.

Decoherence answers Schrodinger's thought experiment. A cat is a classical object, so the state of the cat will interact with it's environment and superposition will not last very long.

The problem you have is that you have made up your own little theories in your head and you expect people to take you seriously when you say you don't subscribe to things like quantum mechanics and Einstein in favor of your made up nonsense.

Again, there's no hidden variable between the superposition of microscopic and macroscopic objects. It's just decoherence and classical objects can't measure their wave function. They can only measure one probable state.


In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence (also known as dephasing) is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.

But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.


en.wikipedia.org...

This goes back to what I have been saying. Decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes because this occurs because of the CHOICE of the Observer.

Quantum Mechanics is not incomplete and it points to the choice of the Observer. Materialist say it's incomplete because they don't want to accept it because it makes their materialist notions look like nonsense.

You also gave another example of how you quote things out of context. You quoted this from the New Scientist article:


the qubit's quantum state could be transferred to the resonator at will.

I put the *could be* in bold for you in case you missed it.


You didn't read the article to understand what was being said, you were just looking for something to cut and paste out of context and you look silly.

Could be meant that it happened not that it could have happened. Did you bother to read the rest of what was said?


By tuning the frequency at which the qubit cycled between its two states to match the resonant frequency of the metallic strip, the qubit's quantum state could be transferred to the resonator at will.

When measured afterwards, the resonator was sometimes in its non-oscillating ground state and sometimes in an oscillating "excited" state. The number of times it was measured to be in each state followed the probabilistic rules of quantum mechanics.


It's like saying:

It COULD BE true.

VS

The cars blue color COULD BE seen when it got close.

Could is often used in the past tense and you didn't try to understand what you were reading, you just saw COULD BE and ran here and started cutting and pasting.

So let's have a quick lesson here.

The article said:


By tuning the frequency at which the qubit cycled between its two states to match the resonant frequency of the metallic strip, the qubit's quantum state could be transferred to the resonator at will.


The qubit's quantum state COULD BE transferred to the resonator at will BY tuning the frequency at which.....

You have to learn how to read and understand before you cut and paste. They explained how the qubit's quantum state COULD BE transferred in the first half of the sentence.

Lastly, I'm the one talking about quantum mechanics. The materialist are talking about wishful thinking. They HOPE that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

I say it's not and it points to the choice of the Observer but materialist will keep going on a wild goose chase because they can't accept reality.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


It'll be nice if you can argue with open mind and in a polite manner. I have been following this thread and its quite unpleasant with the tone you started. Do you think you stand in a high plane to look low at others? Or is it hard to be a little polite while conversing with others?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Everyone calm down and please discuss the subject instead of the OP.

It is a violation of the T & C of this site. Please take note of the following as a reminder.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Superposition exists and has been observed looking at photosynthesis. Also it seems nature/universe itself does seem to make a choice by utlilizing superposition to determine the best outcome at least with photosynthesis.

Quantum Mechanics boosts photosynthesis

also Quantum mechanics is not soley the domain of the micro universe but plays a part in the macro universe as well

www.nature.com...


[edit on 20/6/2010 by loner007]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
In the beginning was the word...and the word was with god and the word was god, and the word became flesh



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join