Needed: A Little Help With That Double-Slit Experiment

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

I'm already familiar with the process of the experiment, this is about the results of the experiment.

You need to use your mind to comprehend the implications of the experiment as a whole.

You keep calling this application a misrepresentation.

It is honestly difficult to tell if you aren't capable of bridging the gap between the experiment and reality when you say something like this.

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

Even physical representations of information are inherently abstract.

What is erased is not physically connected to what it describes...because it is just a measurement...just raw data..

I think the problem lies in trying to describe it as either a wave or a particle. It is clearly something far more complex than either of these. We look at a photon and expect it to behave in one of two ways, as either a wave or a particle. We are limited though by our inability to perceive the true nature of photons. I do not claim to have the answers, but our current explanation of the nature of elementary particles is akin to Ptolemy's view of an earth centered universe.

It seems clear to me that we a hopelessly clinging to the "obvious" while ignoring the possibility that the the true nature of matter and energy are far more complex than we can currently perceive.

reply to post by Jezus

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

Um, that quote doesn't even apply to the experiment, considering it's a flipping actual experiment and not a pure mathematical explanation.

I'm already familiar with the process of the experiment, this is about the results of the experiment.

Clearly you don't understand the actual results, hence why I posted SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES instead of rehashing your misrepresented quote about politicians burning envelopes years later which has nothing to do with the scientific results of the scientific explanation of the scientific experiment.

You need to use your mind to comprehend the implications of the experiment as a whole.

You need to use your mind to read those links and learn something.

You keep calling this application a misrepresentation.

Because it is, again, read those links and learn something.

It is honestly difficult to tell if you aren't capable of bridging the gap between the experiment and reality when you say something like this.

Are you cognitively lazy and just mindlessly look up only the information that agrees with your point of view alone, even if it's not scientifically valid or has nothing at all to do with the actual science itself? Will you just please read those two links? One even has pretty pictures! You like pretty pictures don't you???

Even physical representations of information are inherently abstract.

WHAT?!?! Are you kidding? Our abstract definition and labels may be, but god damn, the physical information is what differentiates one atom from the next. You really have no effin clue what your on about do you?

What is erased is not physically connected to what it describes...because it is just a measurement...just raw data..

READ THE GOD DAMN LINKS YOU LAZY TWIT!

reply to post by Jezus


You are wasting your time and energy.
I explained his signature to him on another thread, he doesn't even understand his own signature, lol.

Originally posted by sirnex
Clearly you don't understand the actual results, hence why I posted SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES instead of rehashing your misrepresented quote about politicians burning envelopes years later which has nothing to do with the scientific results of the scientific explanation of the scientific experiment.

There are multiple versions of the experiments...

You just don't seem to be able to make the connection between the "scientific articles" and the application of the results to reality.

You can debate the inference but your attempt to debate the basic observation of the experiment suggests you don't comprehend it.


The existence of information influences the results of the experiment = Observation

Consciousness is a factor = inference

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...

reply to post by Jezus

There are multiple versions of the experiments...

By all means, please provide any scientific article in regards to burning envelopes by politicians years after the experiment is completed which changes the results.

You just don't seem to be able to make the connection between the "scientific articles" and the application of the results to reality.

I can make no sense of your conclusion when it has no application to reality.

You can debate the inference but your attempt to debate the basic observation of the experiment suggests you don't comprehend it.

Describe how the "delayed erasure" process takes place as explained in the scientific article. Just want to make sure you're actually reading and learning here and not simply regurgitating the same garbage over and over like an autistic child chanting in the corner quietly to himself.

If you claim to comprehend it, then this should be an easy task for ya!

The existence of information influences the results of the experiment = Observation

In the case of this experiment, we are not the observers. No human eye (nor detach conscious mind) looked directly into the laser in place of a sensor.

Consciousness is a factor = inference

The only point in which the human mind became a factor was in the design and setup of the experiment and the viewing of the results after the execution of the experiment. At no point during the experiments inner workings was the human mind affecting any direct physical process within the internal workings of the experiment.

Originally posted by sirnex
I can make no sense of your conclusion when it has no application to reality.

It is clear that you can not make sense of the conclusion that consciousness is a factor.

However, you don't seem to be able to make sense of the experiment itself either.

You still don't understand that the existence of information influences the results.

Originally posted by sirnex
At no point during the experiments inner workings was the human mind affecting any direct physical process within the internal workings of the experiment.

But information does.

And remember what information is?

Originally posted by sirnex
Describe how the "delayed erasure" process takes place as explained in the scientific article. Just want to make sure you're actually reading and learning here and not simply regurgitating the same garbage over and over like an autistic child chanting in the corner quietly to himself.

The only one regurgitating anything is you.

You keep pointing back to the basic process of the experiment as if it somehow that negates the results..

It doesn't.

The fact that the erasure can be built into the mechanism of experiment and done by computers doesn't change the fact that it changes the results of the experiment.

You seem to be confused by the complexity of the experiment and can't comprehend the connection between the results and reality.

reply to post by Jezus

The only one regurgitating anything is you.

I posted two scientific sources. You continuously post one quote which misrepresents those scientific sources.

You keep pointing back to the basic process of the experiment as if it somehow that negates the results..

The results have nothing to do with the human mind, certainly not to the point of showing the human mind changes the results.

It doesn't.

I agree, your quoted misrepresentation has no bearing upon the experiment.

The fact that the erasure can be built into the mechanism of experiment and done by computers doesn't change the fact that it changes the results of the experiment.

I'm not arguing that the instruments don't affect the results, you are.

You seem to be confused by the complexity of the experiment and can't comprehend the connection between the results and reality.

Please post the scientific experiment where politicians burn envelopes. Not that one quote, but an actual scientific article. I've done as much for you, so be a good boy and run along and try to find that source, considering you're the one claiming that this takes place, keep quoting a misrepresentation of the experiment and have claimed that other forms of the experiment have been carried out.

Back up your claims.

reply to post by Jezus

It is clear that you can not make sense of the conclusion that consciousness is a factor.

Only to the point of designing and setup. Consciousness has no affect upon the process itself.

However, you don't seem to be able to make sense of the experiment itself either.

I posted two scientific explanations, please quote from them where the human mind is the determining factor in results being changed.

You still don't understand that the existence of information influences the results.

The experiment deals with physical information, not abstract information as in the case of burning envelopes by politicians.

But information does.

Physical information. Learn the difference.

And remember what information is?

I sure do!

Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another"[citation needed]. The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by sirnex
The experiment deals with physical information, not abstract information as in the case of burning envelopes by politicians.

This is the part you don't seem to grasp.

Physical representations of information are still abstract.

The raw data that is deleted is just a measurement.

This is significant for two reasons.

1. The physical process that is influenced is complete.
2. Information is only connected to what it describes by consciousness.

I honestly can't tell if you aren't capable of comprehending this or if you are just so obsessed with basic materialism that you want science to stop there.

reply to post by Jezus

Physical representations of information are still abstract.

WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about physical representation as in words written on a piece of paper in an envelope about to be burned by a politician at some future point changing the results here and now?

Why don't you take the time to learn what physical information is, and what it is not. The language we use to define and describe is certainly abstract, but this is inherently different from physical information. The experiment does not deal with language or abstract information.

The raw data that is deleted is just a measurement.

Please go back to the two provided links and quote how the "erasure" process takes place. Just quote it for me, that's all. Nice easy task, can't be that hard can it?

1. The physical process that is influenced is complete.

Just quote how the "erasure" takes place. You might learn something if you do! Wouldn't that be fantastic, instead of blubbering around like a fat lazy kid after eating too much cake!

2. Information is only connected to what it describes by consciousness.

Abstract information, yes. Physical information, no. It really won't hurt to learn something, I promise.

I honestly can't tell if you aren't capable of comprehending this or if you are just so obsessed with basic materialism that you want science to stop there.

LOL You haven't even provided any sources for your point of view other than a misrepresented quote that has nothing to do with the experiment, has never been conducted, is not even planned to be conducted and the conclusion derived from that garbage is the only thing you'll listen to regardless of two links explaining the experiment, one with very pretty pictures. Maybe you're blind and I'm offending you by mentioning pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I apologize... explains a lot.

Originally posted by sirnex
WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about physical representation as in words written on a piece of paper in an envelope about to be burned by a politician at some future point changing the results here and now?

Why don't you take the time to learn what physical information is, and what it is not. The language we use to define and describe is certainly abstract, but this is inherently different from physical information. The experiment does not deal with language or abstract information.

It doesn't matter if it is on paper or in a computer.

Or even part of the experimental mechanism.

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.

reply to post by Jezus

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.

Wow, good luck telling a physicist that one!

Clearly you're having issues understanding the difference between abstract and physical information, what the two are and how inherently different they are compared to each other. All I can say from this point forward is... Your plain dumb.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.

Wow, good luck telling a physicist that one!

Clearly you're having issues understanding the difference between abstract and physical information, what the two are and how inherently different they are compared to each other. All I can say from this point forward is... Your plain dumb.

I'm glad to finally get to the bottom of this.

You think "physical" information is some how physically connected to what it describes.

It isn't in this experiment and it never is.

Because even physical information is nothing but representations of raw data, only given meaning by comprehending the significance of the data...

I won't say you are "plain dumb" but you are very confused about the difference between information and the physical quality it refers to.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think the problem lies in trying to describe it as either a wave or a particle. It is clearly something far more complex than either of these. We look at a photon and expect it to behave in one of two ways, as either a wave or a particle. We are limited though by our inability to perceive the true nature of photons. I do not claim to have the answers, but our current explanation of the nature of elementary particles is akin to Ptolemy's view of an earth centered universe.

It seems clear to me that we a hopelessly clinging to the "obvious" while ignoring the possibility that the the true nature of matter and energy are far more complex than we can currently perceive.

The bitch is that it's not conceptually complex at all. In one part of the erasure experiment, the photon's trajectory is interrupted by a prism, and the net result is described as two photons. This translation of what occurs as a net ramification of that prism is inaccurate to begin with. The photon is a matrixed (layers of redundancy) event trajectory in itself (I'll name that trajectory PH1), and PH1 is fundamentally affected by the properties of the prism, which results in PH1 ending as the original trajectory event that it was, and with that prism impact combined with the forward trajectory of PHI (as a photon being shot at the prism) causing the launch of two new similar matrixed event trajectories (I'll call them PH1a and PH1b), along with two follow-on trajectories for each matrixed event due to the original impacting trajectory (think of a cue ball hitting a ball on a table, althoiugh not exactly, since the prisim effect actually created a new photon trajectory as opposed to an already available matrixed event trajectory as in the case of the pool ball)

A traditionally trained observer would never be able to identify this as being anything other than the original photon splitting into two photons, since the interpretation of the prism impact involves something happening to a particle, and not to a matrixed event trajectory that can actually end, or become fundamentally transformed, or even be duplicated; or any combination of possibilities, depending on the specific effect that the impact has on it. Hence, the Quantum weirdness that seems to occur when advanced technology makes it possible for a human being to observe extremely elemental contextual environs.

My point is that unless you understand the truth about the foundations of physical existence and what matter actually is, then these kinds of experiments will always seem like magic. Then again, it took how many centuries before people allowed the earth to be a relative sphere?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about physical representation as in words written on a piece of paper in an envelope about to be burned by a politician at some future point changing the results here and now?

Why don't you take the time to learn what physical information is, and what it is not. The language we use to define and describe is certainly abstract, but this is inherently different from physical information. The experiment does not deal with language or abstract information.

It doesn't matter if it is on paper or in a computer.

Or even part of the experimental mechanism.

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.

I want someone to actually say that the researchers observed the results before the envelopes were burned, and then when the envelopes were burned, that the results (somehow) changed due to the envelopes being burned, and that the change was therefore verified as having actually occurred. In short, if what the envelope contained is never revealed, then this whole argument is insane.

I grew up with guys who went on to be successful criminals, and that's exactly the kind of scam they'd try to pull on greenhorns from the suburbs. Tell me that someone verifies what's in those envelopes before the sh*t gets burned, and that there's a way of establishing the reality of the assertions of the test's conclusions. If not, then take that dumb bullsh*t somewhere where folks are discussing what it feels like to get hosed.

reply to post by Jezus

I'm glad to finally get to the bottom of this.

UGH, if it were only that easy...

"physical" information

physical quality

Now go back to the article I linked to earlier about physical information with these two quotes kept in mind.

It isn't in this experiment and it never is.

No envelopes or computer screens were burned/cleared in the making of this experiment. Please read the articles provided earlier that describe how the "erasure" takes place.

Because even physical information is nothing but representations of raw data, only given meaning by comprehending the significance of the data...

Language has no bearing on physical information.

I won't say you are "plain dumb"

I appreciate that, unfortunately I have little patience for morons who can't even read and learn.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.

Wow, good luck telling a physicist that one!

Clearly you're having issues understanding the difference between abstract and physical information, what the two are and how inherently different they are compared to each other. All I can say from this point forward is... Your plain dumb.

I'm glad to finally get to the bottom of this.

You think "physical" information is some how physically connected to what it describes.

It isn't in this experiment and it never is.

Because even physical information is nothing but representations of raw data, only given meaning by comprehending the significance of the data...

I won't say you are "plain dumb" but you are very confused about the difference between information and the physical quality it refers to.

edit on 1-5-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

Do some reading. Information exists, and it sets the contextual ramifications of precedence. The physics world has absolutely embraced this tenet, and it's been an accept truth for a very, very long time. Sorry, but this is an epic fail on your part. You need to take the time and effort to learn what it is that you've apparently decided is important. This assertion of yours is just fundamentally wrong, and there's no possible argument when someone is this foundationally wrong in their view of what constitutes reality.

Making notes is not creating information, and it doesn't matter what you insist.