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.

 

Needed: A Little Help With That Double-Slit Experiment

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by sirnex
 


It's obvious that you don't currently understand the implications of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

It's okay, it took me a day or two before I realized what was really happening. I'm sure if you took a day or two it might just snap into place for you.


Take a look across the physics world and see whether it understands the implications as you view them. The truth is that the implications you expouse are only embraced by a very vocal fringe element. Not that you'd suspect this to be true if you only read the press releases.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You have to think double slit, consciousness is both a product of physical existance and physical existence is also a manifestation of consciousness.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
Your response doesn't make sense for two reasons.

1. The experiment is only run once. After the deletion takes place the experimenters look back at the results.

2. Raw data is always abstract, regardless of the subject.

If the measurements of two separate double slit experiments are stored in two envelopes and one envelope is burned before looking at the physical results on the "back wall".

The setup where the measurement is destroyed = wave function
The setup where the measurement is saved = the wave function collapses (particle pattern)

The physical abstract raw data can be destroyed after the experiment is complete.

Again, if you understand what abstract data is, the fact the its existence changes the experimental results is significant.


The facts that exist as eternal physical units of information are not affected by the destruction of digital or written representations of that information.


This is exactly what the experiments prove.

By destroyed the "representations" of information (even weeks later), it changes the results of a physically complete experiment.


Originally posted by NorEaster
I don't think that most people realize the physical nature of information. To them, information is an abstract and not a physical reality.


Raw data (like in a book or on a computer), "representations" of information as you said, is abstract.

The only two possibilities to explain the results of the experiment are,
1. Consciousness is a factor.
2. Raw abstract information, when created, somehow becomes physically connected to what it describes.

Are you saying to think explanation 2. is correct?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by sirnex
 


It's obvious that you don't currently understand the implications of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

It's okay, it took me a day or two before I realized what was really happening. I'm sure if you took a day or two it might just snap into place for you.


Don't worry about him, he can comprehend it, the implications just disturb him.

He think science has turned it's back on him because consciousness is a factor in reality...

It isn't really that big a deal.


Originally posted by Jezus
You can check out the experiments but it won't help you in comprehending the connection between raw data and consciousness. You need to figure that out yourself.

"So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that."

www.bottomlayer.com...

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment
arxiv.org...

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer
physicsworld.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I don't think that most people realize the physical nature of information. To them, information is an abstract and not a physical reality.


That's what I've been trying to explain to them in another thread. There's physical information, the kind of information this experiment deals with which is different then this burning the results in an envelope type of information which has nothing to do with the experiment.

These folks are hung up on the misrepresentation and that one quotation of the experiments explanation.


Humans can create their own perception of what they believe is real, but they can't create reality.


Exactly!


The truth is that the implications you expouse are only embraced by a very vocal fringe element.


They only look at these kinds of sources because it confirms their beliefs for them. I also look at these sources myself, but then I research the hell out of them to see if they are valid. I would love for them to be valid, but they never end up being true to what the actual science is saying.

I mean, how cool would it be to have super powers?

reply to post by SystemResistor
 



You have to think double slit, consciousness is both a product of physical existance and physical existence is also a manifestation of consciousness.


That's not what the experiment shows and wasn't even intended to show. Doesn't even have anything at all to do with human consciousness nor the acute narcissism of the human species.

reply to post by Jezus
 



This is exactly what the experiments prove.

By destroyed the "representations" of information (even weeks later), it changes the results of a physically complete experiment.


That's not what happens at all, not even remotely close. Here's a scientific paper explaining the experiment. Quote where it says it destroys "representations of information". Read and learn something

Here's a link with pretty pictures, pay attention to the part where the "erasure" occurs. Note the equipment and how it works in the experiment, treat it like a puzzle and keep at it till you finally get wtf is going on. Read and learn something


Raw data (like in a book or on a computer), "representations" of information as you said, is abstract.

The only two possibilities to explain the results of the experiment are,
1. Consciousness is a factor.
2. Raw abstract information, when created, somehow becomes physically connected to what it describes.

Are you saying to think explanation 2. is correct?


Neither point is correct and neither point is proven from the experiment. The only thing proven is your inability to understand physics at all.


edit on 29-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Good stuff. You make me want to sit back and watch.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by sirnex
 


Good stuff. You make me want to sit back and watch.


HAHA, I'm trying my best man. Been dealing with them in a couple other threads too. Even had one bitching about hands and arms instead of my actual argument against how the human EM field is too weak to affect planetary magnetic fields. Funny thing is, the guy argues like he thinks he's an authority on this matter; And despite me posting sources showing that the human EM field is weaker than a fridge magnet. I mean, come on... we can't even affect a compass, how are we going to affect an entire planetary magnetic field?

I'm starting to come under the assumption that common sense doesn't exist anymore.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by sirnex
 


Good stuff. You make me want to sit back and watch.


HAHA, I'm trying my best man. Been dealing with them in a couple other threads too. Even had one bitching about hands and arms instead of my actual argument against how the human EM field is too weak to affect planetary magnetic fields. Funny thing is, the guy argues like he thinks he's an authority on this matter; And despite me posting sources showing that the human EM field is weaker than a fridge magnet. I mean, come on... we can't even affect a compass, how are we going to affect an entire planetary magnetic field?

I'm starting to come under the assumption that common sense doesn't exist anymore.


It still exists. It just doesn't have as good a PR staff as crazy has. That's okay. I'm hoping to see what it'll take to make common sense attractive and worth identifying with for those who've gotten frustrated with its apparent inability to address the mysteries that our technology has finally allowed us to observe. Throwing away reality simply because it doesn't agree with a long accepted misinterpretation is no answer. Especially when the solution to the whole issue might just be readily available. A simple adjustment to our view of the sub-structure of physical reality, and the nature of the indivisible unit itself; the event, not the particle, and an acknowledgement that relative perspective - on behalf of the human brain (as the event that it is, as well) - has translated the simple matrixed event trajectory as the particle.

Once this has been mainstreamed, all the contradictions would quickly collapse. I don't expect it to occur during my lifetime, but all permanent transformations begin as slow progressive movements. I'm actually encouraged by how slow this transformation is being.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It's great that you have found someone who agrees with your own conclusions.
You have de bunked it now.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is a most excellent explanation in Michael Crichton's book Timeline. It does not agree with the obviously stupid mainstream view. Fortunately, it is on google books.

Google Books - Timeline - Double Slit Experiment

(scroll down a bit)

edit on 30-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: added last sentence in parentheses



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


What do you mean by 'obviously stupid mainstream view.'?
Reality first then us later?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is a most excellent explanation in Michael Crichton's book Timeline. It does not agree with the obviously stupid mainstream view. Fortunately, it is on google books.

Google Books - Timeline - Double Slit Experiment

(scroll down a bit)

edit on 30-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: added last sentence in parentheses


What makes Michael Crichton, or anyone else for that matter, believe that the only particles that can affect a photon's trajectory is another photon? The suggestion is ludicrous. It's as if to suggest that the only physical mass that can affect the physical mass of a human being is another human being, and that's obviously not true. That passage was either written to showcase how ignorant that character is, or Michael Crichton is showcasing how ignorant he is. Either way, it's clear that the passage you linked to is the result of someone who ran off a cliff over that double-slit experiment and has no idea what physics involves.

Trajectory impact can come from many sources. Our own DNA suggests that trajectory can be affected by the physical presence of information directives. The human being's capacity for perception is confined to its natural and technological parameters. This has always resulted in science having to edit and reedit reality. You'd think that they'd develop a shame gene at some point, but that doesn't seem to ever happen. Meanwhile, the same sense of authority has migrated to the fringe element within that community, and now we're having to deal with their faith-based reasoning. It's feast or famine with these folks. Reality is either absurdly impossible or ridiculously plausible. They should try and consider the basis of what has brought them to such a point where nothing they insist as being a breakthrough makes any sense with everything else that they insist as being fundamental. The schism is becoming intolerable.
edit on 4/30/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
There's physical information, the kind of information this experiment deals with which is different then this burning the results in an envelope type of information which has nothing to do with the experiment.


Nothing to do with the experiment?

You don't make any sense...


Originally posted by Jezus
"So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that."

www.bottomlayer.com...

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment
arxiv.org...

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer
physicsworld.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
There's physical information, the kind of information this experiment deals with which is different then this burning the results in an envelope type of information which has nothing to do with the experiment.


Nothing to do with the experiment?

You don't make any sense...


I see. Well, I guess that settles that, then.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I just posted two links that outline the experiment. One a scientific article with a scientific explanation and another with pretty pictures in case you couldn't understand that scientific article. Yet some how you still manage to quote that one itty bitty tiny misrepresentation of the experiments that has nothing to do with the actual scientific explanation or with the nice pretty picture outline of how the experiment works, in particular the part where the "erasure" process takes place.

You must hate learning... It's the only thing I can assume when you mind numbingly re-post the same misrepresentation over and over like an autistic child chanting quietly in the corner to himself.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Yet some how you still manage to quote that one itty bitty tiny misrepresentation of the experiments that has nothing to do with the actual scientific explanation or with the nice pretty picture outline of how the experiment works, in particular the part where the "erasure" process takes place.


Regardless of how you try to "represent" the experiment it does not change the experimental results.

The "delayed erasure" isn't really that complicated.

The information is deleted after the process is complete but it still changes the results of the experiment...



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


You're right, it's not that complicated, so please take the time to read the provided links given earlier that explain the experiment, it's setup and it's operation with included pretty pictures. It only get's complicated when you end up fixated upon a misrepresentation of the science and that's all you wish to listen to.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Misrepresentation?

Your vague unfounded claims don't change the results of the experiment.

Raw abstract data is not physically connected to what it describes (yes, even in physics).

This experiment proves that deleting the information after the process is complete changes the experimental results.

---

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

It is ironic that you have the quote in your signature, because you aren't able to understand the implications of the experiment and apply it to reality.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Misrepresentation?


Yep, that one quote you keep mind numbingly regurgitating has nothing to do with the experiment itself. It's a blatant misrepresentation of the experiment, which would be readily apparent if you would just read the two links I provided that explain the experiment with included pretty pictures to help you visualize how it all works in practice.


Your vague unfounded claims don't change the results of the experiment.


No envelopes were harmed in the making of this experiment.


Raw abstract data is not physically connected to what it describes (yes, even in physics).


Um, duh? This experiment deals with physical information only. It has nothing to do with abstract information at all. Certainly not with burning envelopes years later by politicians.


This experiment proves that deleting the information after the process is complete changes the experimental results.


Again, please read the provided links so you can better understand the "erasure" aspect of the experiment and why all scientific article place the word erasure in quotation marks.


It is ironic that you have the quote in your signature, because you aren't able to understand the implications of the experiment and apply it to reality.


Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue. Tesla was arguing that it is better to understand reality through experiment rather than pure mathematical explanation alone in place of experimentation. It's pretty clear, not sure how you missed that one. Seeing as you have, it explains why you are still hung up on that one quotation that has nothing to do with the experiment at all.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

It is ironic that you have the quote in your signature, because you aren't able to understand the implications of the experiment and apply it to reality.


Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue. Tesla was arguing that it is better to understand reality through experiment rather than pure mathematical explanation alone in place of experimentation. It's pretty clear, not sure how you missed that one.




Obviously I understood the quote when I said it was ironic that you aren't able to apply the results of an experiment to understanding reality



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join