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.

 

For the First Time Ever, Scientists Watch an Atom's Electrons Moving in Real Time

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Do you know what this means?

This could produce the fastest form of communication, this is even faster than light.

You can communicate Earth to Mars in real time.

This is amazing.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


They may have that ability already, they don't tell us everything as you know, as a matter a fact I think there are experiments that have been done on a quantum level that proves it can be done.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by oozyism
 


They may have that ability already, they don't tell us everything as you know, as a matter a fact I think there are experiments that have been done on a quantum level that proves it can be done.


Yes it has already been tested, but it is more than that, you can change the physical properties of things miles away.

This is like those vodoo dolls, when you move the arm, the person's arm moves etc.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to post by oozyism
 


They may have that ability already, they don't tell us everything as you know, as a matter a fact I think there are experiments that have been done on a quantum level that proves it can be done.


Yes it has already been tested, but it is more than that, you can change the physical properties of things miles away.

This is like those vodoo dolls, when you move the arm, the person's arm moves etc.


Also communication at a distance, doesn't matter how far.

Amazing stuff.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Quantum physics is comprised of highly artificial "mathematical" objects, made up by a science refered to as "mathematical physics". I would like to point out, that mathematics is not a science, but a tool - albeit mathematics often leaves one with this impression, as it is said to be about "making definitions". However, it is easy to prove that there is not a single valid definition in mathematical physics. It is filled with cricularities and loopholes. In physics we call this "cheating".
A mathematician has no use for a consistent defintion of a point. If he did, he would not be able to use a point as: a dot, or a location, or an ordered pair (in a cartesian plane), or c) an event (in space-time).
In physics (I conciously left the "maths" out), definitions MUST be consistent. An object in physics is not the same thing as in maths. In physics we require an object before we can even start physics. And a "physical" object possesses by definition two distinct properties: First of all: a location, which describes the position of the test-object to the remaining objects inside the universe. And secondly: Shape, describing its geometry... The so called "see - touch - criterion" is not valid in physics, as the processes "seeing" or touching" are 1st of all verbs, and 2nd cannot be refered to as description for a location or shape. The geometry of an object in physics is best described - and I guess everyone agrees - by the commonly and well known 3 dimensions of space... In physics the definition of a point is a "no-brainer"... no need consulting a rocket scientist asking him to tell everyone what a piont is. In physics a point is defined as a dot. It's got 2 distinct propteries: shape (round), and location: (fx. on the piece of paper in front of me).
Mathematicians in fact use the word object and at the same time talk about a concept.
Concepts in physics relates two objects to each other. Further, a concept always has an opposite. F.x. "on" is the opposite of "not on", "up" is the opposite of "down", "mass" is the opposite of "massless"... BUT: "rock" is NOT the opposite of "tree", and "cat" is NOT the opposite of "no-cat" (...got the cat-joke ?) ...guess you all agree, that even a moron does comprehend the difference.
An electron has never been observed, and this has nothing to do whatsoever with the, in this context (too) often cited "uncertainty principle". This principle relates to the "artificial" entity itself. (...namely our famous electron - like a leprechaun, lurking, cloaked in invisibility). Heisenberg has caught himself in a loophole there, as he mixes up defintions, both of physics and maths. And when I can establish a loophole in science - w/o anyone noticing or disagreeing - then I can prove ANY theory... at least the math-bit of it
...and because everyone believes in maths - as we were tought so in school - everyone believes that the theory must be correct, though. ...And when you finally think "are we done...?", reality vomits on your eiderdown once more... reads like the words: ...no... -...not quite... And when these Dr. and Profs. of mathematical physics then claim, that their theory is capable of delivering precise descriptions, they show us an equation about how uncertain they are... - to put it mildly, that's rediculous !
Quantum theory dismisses causality, thus rendering any prediction impossible. Heisenberg answered a journalist on "Is the atom now a particle or a wave?" by saying "It's a tendency !".
No ! Physics neither is the science of energy and measurement, nor it is comprised of inconsistent defintions...sorry for the pun
Circularity enables the scientific establishment to come up with the - for common sense - incomprehensible theories and equations, you can then read about in scientific journals.
Physics is by definition the science of existence. Causality can never be dismissed in physics...you simply can't do that! If you do, you may as well give up, and find a real job



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Brilliant. That's the feeling I have. I've been connecting bits and pieces of information and they all point to what you stated.

What we experience may only be a single condition of that Non-Dimensional force (or God as many like to put it).

After adopting this viewpoint, suddenly the world doesn't seem that serious anymore.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Disillusioned_Youth
 

If you want to think you are a god go ahead.
I see it otherwise, each individual is a unique signature even if we are all energy.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Excellent post, those are definitely some of my thoughts, I think they are looking in all the wrong places, science is limited, when something is finite it leaves out everything else, it would take more then a Quantum leap.

Thank you for posting Matrix Traveller



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Time is a byproduct of our minds rate of perception



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Yippee......... sign me up, I'm good to go!!

120 miles is well within my splat range

Just one problem though, I'm a bit like a Electron, you stop observing, I'm outta there (that includes blinking).



 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Sat Aug 7 2010 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


This may appear to be off topic.... but I believe it is Relevant to the subject overall with regard to the interpretation of what we are discovering through human based science.

I Love Science !

So please don't misinterpret what I have written here.

There is in fact No end to Science... and what we know has only scratched the surface of knowledge, and in truth we as a species are very, very primitive...


The Individual "Species" and this "Universe" is Nothing Like what is producing it….

The Individual "Species", we (LIFE) experience the Universe through, is the End Result and it has Not come about by the components of this Universe or anything of that nature, whither it be Energy so called, Gravity or even the illusion of Time.


I have been involved with R&D (full time) during the last 17 years developing "Interfaces" which communicate with the other end of the Mind (Awareness).
These Interfaces will allow us access, to all the Program Books of the All. This includes all the "Manuals" both of the “Operating System” and the Programs within the “Operating System” producing innumerable species, to experiencing innumerable environments, such as "Universes" and other Worlds nothing at all like this Little Universe.

This R&D deals with the very "Processing system" which produces individually experiences i.e. the individual "Species Program" and the "Environmental Program" we refer to as this Universe.


I can tell you what produces (i.e. the processing system) this, does Not resemble anything like, what we experience visually as a 3D World.

What we experience, is the result of "Communication" between the 2 ends of the Mind, in the form of a Conceptual Geometric based "Processing System".

The "Environment Program" (this little Universe) is common to all the Droplets of Awareness or LIFE, who have chosen to experience this Universe through a given Species, and is constantly updated within the boundaries of the Options, we can chose from at any given time.

We write to the "Environment Program" unknowingly by most, as it is exists as an automatic function. Any action we take involves writing to the "Environment Program" Automatically.

The All is based on the "Concept" of a "Plane/s", produced by that which has No Dimension.

It is a geometric Fact that any "Plane" has a minimum of 2 Faces ("Outer" Faces).

These 2 Faces can Conceptually represent the 2 Ends of "Awareness" which some call LIFE, or Intelligent Entity which is experiencing the Environment through the Species.

When we study the so called sciences, we are talking about the Science involving the “Interpretations” of the Human Species through reason, established through indoctrination.
The human brain has many functions and one of these is a "Filter" for processing information which is modified by Indoctrination of the Species.

The function of the brain, that is the "Filter" interprets information being presented from either end of the Mind, Awareness, LIFE Entity, or whatever label you wish to attach to it.

All things are produced involve “Opposites”.

Without the "Small", there isn’t the "Large", without the "Up there isn’t the "Down" and without the "Black" there isn’t the "White" and Vic-versa in all.

So if one end of the mind is the "Opposite" to the other geographically in the processing sense, then one end of the Mind knows all, where the other end knows nothing to start with, but slowly discovers what the other end is presenting, in the form of the Species and the Environment Programs.

This is what produces our experience…

These 2 "Ends" of the Mind Conceptually represent the "Inner" Mind and the "Outer" Mind.

The "Inner" Mind experiences independently from the "Centre" and as we know, the absolute "Centre" has No Shape or Size and therefore can be said to be "Nothing", yet as we know the "Centre" does exist in all things, whether physically so called or just Conceptually.

The “Outer” on the other hand represents "form" even if only "abstract" or "Conceptual" in the fact that the "Outward" is away from the "Centre" or origin thus the "Outer" contains All.

Because each droplet of "Awareness" is bound by the same conditions, each of their "Outers" contain All knowledge of its "Contents".

This is why we experience from the "Centre" of our Droplet of "Awareness" or LIFE entity. Because the Centre has No Dimension thus being Nothing, is able to experience through discovery.
If we knew all, we would No longer view this Program in the way we do but instead we would become the "Outer" as a result of knowing the All thus No longer experience this little Universe through the Individual Species Program.

But we can learn to "alternate" (Based on the first Conceptual Movement within the Mind or Awareness) between the 2 ends of The Mind.
The result is obvious.

The root of our experience, is found in an Algorithm (Geometric) which is known by some as the "Paradox" Geometric Algorithm.

This is why we have Discussion or argument regarding what we experience and is also the "Component" which allows Choice....

[edit on 6-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 





Here how it looks, it looks like a wave to me.


If you were on a horse, on a merry-go-round and sped up faster and faster, to an outside observer, you would of started off on a solid form..a horse, but once up to speed, it would appear you were part of a wave..a kind of ribbon of energy. So, depending on your spin rate, you would appear as either a particle (horse), or wave (fast orbit).

Another way of looking at it could be this. Imagine you are standing next to a railway track, and an express train is whizzing past you.
If you open your eyes, and look at the train going by you, it would look like a solid streak of something, flowing like a wave. If you rapidly blinked your eyes, you would capture fleeting glimpses of train carriages, or the engine, or the goods cars. Each would look like separate elements of wave whizzing by. These snapshots would be the particles. If you didn't observe it correctly by blinking at the right frequency, all you would see would be a blurred wave.

An idea - now that we can directly observe the number and frequency of the electrons...and just as importantly their relative positions to the nucleus..does this now mean that we can...build our own self spinning atom replications ?!

If so..the implications are interesting.

Imagine artificial electrons, but built on the macro (larger) scale.

In a macro sized atom replication, if we substituted the electrons - copying their positions and orientations - using magnets, could we build macro self 'excited electron power generators'?

Something tells me, this is going to have a role to play in energy applications sooner or later.


[edit on 6/8/2010 by spikey]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
yeh KORG , by observing the electrons and their changes between orbits , we have altered their natural state !

The very act of observation of particles changes their natural state

that is mind boggling

so without human observation would the universe exist in any sense ?



Again people are misinterpreting the usage of the word observation when dealing with quantum physics.

As we observe the universe around us, we do it in a non-interfering manner - Passive observation using 3 of our 5 senses. Touch and taste would be the only interfering methods by which we observe the world around us. Perhaps even smell to a degree, but you get the point.

In the same way that in order to observe things at the atomic level, we need to gauge the state of the particle by interfering with it. The devices used to observe such tiny particles inherently cause interference when used, which inevitably alters the outcome.

If we could merely focus infinitely small enough to observe things at a quantum level, and leave those particles in the states they occur naturally in, we could see how they naturally act. But we need to interfere in order to 'see'. Much like sending out sonar to detect where the bottom of the ocean is.

When I look at my glass of wine here, I don't affect it's state. It's nearly empty. Only by interfering with it can I change that state.

So the world around us does not change when we observe it.

Would it exist without observation, is a different kettle of fish.
Trees falling in forests making no sound kinda fish.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Doesn't the 'double slit' experiment go against what you say the effect of observation has on the quantum world?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
If we could merely focus infinitely small enough to observe things at a quantum level, and leave those particles in the states they occur naturally in, we could see how they naturally act. But we need to interfere in order to 'see'. Much like sending out sonar to detect where the bottom of the ocean is.


I'm afraid this isn't correct. In quantum mechanics it is the recording of data that collapses the wave function and not the process.

This is a good example...



How do photon detectors work I hear you ask?

Well actually it's quite simple wrapped up in complicated technology. It has to do with the changing energy states of electrons, as a photon strikes a detector, the detector describes a single photon by recording the energy fluctuation an electron goes through from ground state to one that is ground + the energy of the photon.

So the premise we are interfering with the photon is correct, but... and it's a big but... The photon appears to act differently depending on whether we record the data or if we don't.

Or in other words a conscious observer absolutely IS required for a wave function to collapse.

Which brings us to what is Consciousness??.... The answer to that question I can relay but the real question should now be how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?

Korg.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Doesn't the 'double slit' experiment go against what you say the effect of observation has on the quantum world?




Observation of the double slit experiment, still interferes with the outcome when determining which slit the particles passed through.

Using one slit, the results indicate a particle.

Using two slits, the results indicate a wave.

Detecting which slit the particles passed through, alters this by interfering with the particle passing through which leads to a particle result again.

I wasn't pointing out a definitive opinion on quantum physics by the way (Heck, I know little to nothing about it specifically, I'm just fascinated by it), just that people often equate the term observation when used in this context as simply looking, and get the wrong idea about it.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf
Observation of the double slit experiment still interferes with the outcome when determining which slit the particles passed through.


That's the whole point of the double slit experiment. The particle doesn't go through one slit. It goes through both and no slits all at the same time.

The observation apparatus may function but only collapses the wave function when recording data.

As I mentioned earlier the observation techniques in this experiment are unobtrusive and there is no physics interference with the photon.

This might give you a better understanding of the experiment.



Hope this helps,

All the best,

Korg.

Edit to rewrite a misleading statement.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

I'm afraid this isn't correct. In quantum mechanics it is the recording of data that collapses the wave function and not the process.

This is a good example...


Could you point me to a source of who did this experiment? He simply says "scientists" but does not name anyone.

I have never heard of merely not recording data having an effect on the outcome. It is the point that detection has occurred, and to say recording the data affects the outcome is the same as saying putting a Geiger counter on Schrodinger's cats box instantly makes the cat alive.

I did try to look up some information on it myself, but every resource that even mentions this guys name and the claims he makes in the video are strewn with words like crackpot and 'no study has been done and the claim is completely wrong.'.



How do photon detectors work I hear you ask?

Well actually it's quite simple wrapped up in complicated technology. It has to do with the changing energy states of electrons, as a photon strikes a detector, the detector describes a single photon by recording the energy fluctuation an electron goes through from ground state to one that is ground + the energy of the photon.

So the premise we are interfering with the photon is correct, but... and it's a big but... The photon appears to act differently depending on whether we record the data or if we don't.

Or in other words a conscious observer absolutely IS required for a wave function to collapse.

Which brings us to what is Consciousness??.... The answer to that question I can relay but the real question should now be how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?

Korg.


I'm still keeping an open mind, but until I can be pointed to a factual and peer reviewed study on this experiment using a detector that does not record data, I will have to remain of the opinion that the conscious observer in no way affects the outcome of the double slit experiment.

Cheers!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by badw0lf
Observation of the double slit experiment still interferes with the outcome when determining which slit the particles passed through.


That's the whole point of the double slit experiment. The particle doesn't go through one slit. It goes through both and no slits all at the same time.


The particle only goes through one slit, as it is a particle. Until you open Both slits, when light acts like a wave and passes through both slits, causing interference (different to the interference of the observation) and the subsequent pattern on the screen.



This might give you a better understanding of the experiment.



Hope this helps,

All the best,

Korg.

Edit to put a better vid up

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]


Missing the video, but I think I understand the double slit experiment; I was commenting to Spikey when he asked if the double slit experiment negated the statement I made that the manner of observation of the particle affects the outcome, because of interference.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

I have never heard of merely not recording data having an effect on the outcome. It is the point that detection has occurred, and to say recording the data affects the outcome is the same as saying putting a Geiger counter on Schrodinger's cats box instantly makes the cat alive.


Not at all, because the geiger counter itself enters superposition. A hard concept to get your head around I know. but there is the truth of it.

A quantum system only enteres cohearance at the point of a consious observeration.


I did try to look up some information on it myself, but every resource that even mentions this guys name and the claims he makes in the video are strewn with words like crackpot and 'no study has been done and the claim is completely wrong.'.


Nooo not at all.

Look into this..

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu



And as for crackpot comments, people have a hard time with qauntum mechanics and an even harder time when they think about the implications. It's not too long ago that you would have been called a crack pot for suggesting the world was a sphere and not flat...

All the best,

Korg.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join