Does the Double Slit Experiment, prove, that we live in a simulation?

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
When you look at the results, of the Double Slit Experiment.
It seems quite possible, that if an observer can change the behaviour,
from one way to the other so radically.
I get the feeling that it is caused by no other that a bug in the programming of a visualization program, for a computer.

What do you think can be the cause?







posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
could imply many things...

I personaly think it is a prime example of exactly how powerful "perception" is and that it does indeed "change" things. If the mere act of percieving or observing particles changes the way in which they act who says that this cannot be duplicated to some degree on a "larger" scale and with more control?

Perception is everything...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
so could we say that "reality has it´s own conscience" ?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
It's actually a computer glitch that they forgot to work out during the y2k problem.



In reality... (or non-reality) This question is well beyond my paygrade.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The double slit experiment would seem to show that reality acts much like your Playstation 3 when playing Call of Duty. When you are running around in Call of Duty, you see everything taking place in front of you within your view. What is happening in the rest of game world, such as behind you?

The double slit would imply that matter does not actually exist unless it is observed much like the polygons you can't see when you play Call of Duty.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Although I am not a scientist, I do know from my studies that the double slit experiment is used as evidence for the wave nature of particles. This is due to the fact that photons (particle-like packets of waves) also experience diffraction.
Therefore, a De Broglie Wavelength can be calculated, proving that particles experience wave-like behaviour (considering having a wavelength is usually synonymous with waves). As a result, the double slit experiment is simply an insight into the quantum world that science is only just beginning to comprehend.

However, your inference that this could be due to a 'glitch' has piqued my interest, and although fanciful, it is a very interesting idea that deserves a star and flag.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermidor
 


That would also imply that electrons are waves also. But that doesn't really explain why they act differently under observation and without observation.

Waves

I just notice I go cross eyed when thinking about it. But there is definitely a good foundation for a great science fiction story built on this premise.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I am going to go out on a limb here and take the chance of sounding like an idiot.
I think that the double slit experiment proves that photons and other particles, possible all elementary particles, inhabit a higher dimension. We can only perceive a small part of the whole and thus interpret the actions of the particles to be "spooky" and unexplainable.

The faster than light "communication" that seems to take place between particles only seems faster than light to us because the real communication takes a shortcut through a hidden dimension. The seeming collapse of the particle wave function of a particle when it is observed, takes place because the orientation of the particle in the hidden dimension is altered when it it is observed by a detector in our dimension. The particle doesn't actually change shape, it's orientation simply shifts in such a way, that to us, it appears to become either a particle or wave. It only appears that way to us because we cannot perceive the particle in it's entirety due to the bulk of it being hidden in a higher dimension.

Carl Sagan's description of the mythical flatland seems to be the best way of describing it. Just replace the extradimensional beings with elementary particles and the lower dimensional flatlanders with us. It seems plausible to me, of course I am only an engineer and not a science fiction writer or physicist.

edit on 6/20/2011 by Sparky63 because: punctuation
edit on 6/20/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
my own personal theory based on my limited research is that humans act as a type of neuron of the universe

based on a certain neurologists theory (cant remember who right now its been a while since ive talked about ths topic) when neurons change their chemical make up in order to facilitate an electrical charge (which could be just a thought for example) they change the make up of the outer area of the brain which is thought to facilitate the electromagnetic field that is our consciousness, when this gets changed its what accounts for our perception, also neurons seem to attract into groupings which form thought patterns, i would place a bet that the change of the outer area is what attracts neurons together to form groups and specific and larger thought patterns

i think that it may be similar for us as humans, a change in our electromagnetic field (consciousness, thought patterns, feelings, whatever) produces a change in the universe (by unseen means) in which a force is created that attracts to us a thing that produces a similar change and can be seen materially,

example, you think and focus on a specific car, your electromagnetic field is focused on it intensely and then you start seeing it everywhere, maybe your neighbour buys it a week later etc.

neurons come together with like "minded" neurons to form more complex thought patterns for our consciousness, maybe we are the same for the universe just a million times more complicated (but same basic function)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tomten
 


It's not all that mysterious once you realize that "observation" of particles involves direct interference of the system with whatever we are observing those particles with. We can never observe anything without affecting it, but it's not being affected simply because we are observing it...it's being affected because we must use something physical to perform the observation, which, in turn, affects what we observe.

All the double-slit experiment truly proves is that particles behave both as particles and as waves under specific, and different, circumstances (though, even this interpretation is slightly out-dated). Beyond that, we must keep in mind that our observation of particles and quantum states is not an indirect process.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Now thats an explanation that I can get my head around lol



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The Double Slit Experiment is currently and vigorously being used as the leverage to pass through all manner of new age/metaphysical claims. Although it's a common tactic to use quantum mysteries as a kind of foundation for mystical nonsense I'm unsure why this particular experiment is currently being paraded around with such enthusiasm.

In the case of this thread the DS experiment is used to justify a claim that "we live in a simulation". I'm very skeptical that the experiment indicates any such thing.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Well..
My thought was, that the observer, is causing the visualization program to decide upon a reality to show us.
When we are not observing the slits, the visualization program makes a different decision on what to show.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I dunno.
It's all quantum to me.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Lots of people get confused or scared about this subject and then write it off as "unreal" "impossible" "it doesn't mean anything" and then start to attack and ask for proof of claims when they may not really understand the science even from the basic beginning.

Thing is, nobody knows yet. To me, I believe its the light particles that have higher consciousness than most other objects, yes, I'm implying that light is alive in a sense, it does carry energy after all.

I made a thread some time ago with possible evidence that we we're not real. Stating that we are just memory since energy can't be created or destroyed based off some other guys theory I added to it and came to my own conclusion. It gets a little complicated, but the bottom line is that we have a lot to learn about this world.

If you believe in Einstein's work then living in a simulation isn't too far fetched
edit on 20-6-2011 by Mizzijr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

No, I think it proves that really weird and as yet inexplicable things go on at the sub atomic level. Trying to take those sub atomic occurrences and apply them to what we see here in macro world ends up resulting in a lot of woo-woo nonsense.

Now if you could do that experiment with a cheese sandwich or a dog, rather than an electron or a photon, or anything named after Bucky Fuller, maybe you've got my attention.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by tomten
 


It's not all that mysterious once you realize that "observation" of particles involves direct interference of the system with whatever we are observing those particles with. We can never observe anything without affecting it, but it's not being affected simply because we are observing it...it's being affected because we must use something physical to perform the observation, which, in turn, affects what we observe.

All the double-slit experiment truly proves is that particles behave both as particles and as waves under specific, and different, circumstances (though, even this interpretation is slightly out-dated). Beyond that, we must keep in mind that our observation of particles and quantum states is not an indirect process.


Thank you for posting, it seems nobody else actually understands this.

It's NOT that we are observing it that is causing any change, it's the WAY we are observing it.

An example:

Say you have a little wind tunnel, and then say you want to measure the wind speed with a little fan that spins faster as the wind blows harder.

Obviously this little fan blade is going to disrupt the natural flow of the wind in the wind tunnel. Are we changing the wind just by looking at it? Not at all. The natural flow of the wind is changing because there is a fan in the way, that is disrupting it.

People are either intentionally misleading people, or just don't really understand it themselves. People try to make it seem as if the mere act of looking at something changes it- it doesn't. The tools we use to measure something can change it, that is the huge difference.

If we could shrink ourselves down to a size small enough to passively observe it, then we would see what's actually going on. But we can't, so we use instruments that interrupt what is naturally going on, just like the fan inside a wind tunnel.

Nothing crazy going on, just our inadequate way of observing things at such a small scale.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


I agree and have thought this for awhile about this experiment. Whatever they're using to measure/view the particles is interfering with the 'normal' way the particles behave.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
It's NOT that we are observing it that is causing any change, it's the WAY we are observing it.


That was my initial impression as well, although you would expect a scientist able to perform this experiment to also understand that basic fact?

This topic is very interesting, and I should also state that I was consistently top of my class in all of my physics & math courses in college. It my conclusion that the "uncertainty" observed in quantum-mechanics is not the fundamental nature of what is happening, but an effect of something else we don't yet fully understand. Kind of like observing a mirage in the desert -- it appears real, but it's really an illusion of something that does exist which we can't clearly observe; we think it's shimmering and moving around, but that is an illusion. So what really causes quantum effects? Higher-dimensionality is my personal guess right now, especially given the dual nature of many of these effects.

Why can exactly 2 electrons share an orbit? "They have different spin" -- ohh, ok. Hey wait, what does that MEAN in human terms? "It is just an incomprehensible fundamental property of quantum mechanics, we can't really comprehend it, it just is" = cop out. How about this for a more sensible explanation -- one electron is partially extruding above our perceived 3D space, the other is partially extruding below it. They can occupy "the same space" because they're each slightly displaced in a 4th spatial dimension.

Extra-dimensionality also seems to explain quantum tunneling. "We can't explain how the particle got out of the box, it just got out through a mysterious property of quantum mechanics by which particles can somehow pass through solid walls." Um, no. Actually it just moved slightly into a 4th spatial dimension and got out that way.
To me, Occam's Razor slices right through traditional q-mech interpretation.

As for the single-photon double-slit -- I would urge avoiding jumping to unfounded conclusions. First off, where is the proof that only single photons were fired? Secondly, where is the proof that these measuring instruments "which pushed the photons into 2 beams instead of 3" didn't physically affect the results? The way they drew the detectors in the CGI diagram, it sure looked like they would affect the results.

And if there is no flaw in the experiment -- well I'll have to think about it a bit more. One possibility that strikes me initially is this -- what if there's no such thing as a "single photon"?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by James1982
It's NOT that we are observing it that is causing any change, it's the WAY we are observing it.


That was my initial impression as well, although you would expect a scientist able to perform this experiment to also understand that basic fact?


The scientists performing the experiment do typically understand that fact. It's not their fault when some mediator between them and the public doesn't understand and misinforms the public.

Besides, it's not really a "basic" fact, it's one that takes a significant technical and logical understanding of what's happening. It may be simple once you think of it, but it's not necessarily intuitive to think that there is a physical interaction occurring when we observe something.

Let's say photons are involved in the double-slit experiment. These are detected by their reaction with a photosensitive material located wherever the experimenter wishes to observe it. This interaction is the observation, and, thus, it interacts directly with the photon.

What if electrons are being used instead? In this case, the electron is detected by firing a photon at it - again, directly interacting with it.

No variation of the double-slit experiment exists in which the particles involved are not directly interfered with by some other particle(s) in order to observe them.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join