Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Wrong post
edit on 20-6-2011 by WeMoveUnseen because: tyskie




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The relationship between the observer and the observed is a fundamental aspect of our universe. When we attempt to understand life through linear measurement we tend to diminish that life. Life, nor the universe, is linear.


For the natural universe is not a linear system. It involves an infinitude of variables interacting simultaneously, so that it would take incalculable aeons to translate one moment of its operation into linear, alphabetic language.


Alan Watts - Tao: The Watercourse Way

From that same book, indeed the same chapter, Watts also offers this observation:


Hitherto, Western science has stressed the attitude of objectivity - a cold, calculating, and detached attitude through which it appears that natural phenomenon, including the human organism, are nothing but mechanisms. But, as the world itself implies, a universe of mere objects is objectionable. We feel justified in exploiting it ruthlessly, but now we are realizing belatedly that the ill-treatment of the environment is damage to ourselves - for the simple reason that subject and object cannot be separated, and that we and our surroundings are the process of a unified field, which is what the Chinese call Tao. In the long run, we simply have no other alternative than to work along with this process by attitudes and methods which could be effective technically as judo, the "gentle Tao" is effective athletically. As human beings have to make the gamble of trusting one another in order to have any kind of worakble community, we must also take the risk of trimming our sails to the winds of nature. For our "selves" are inseperable from this kind of universe, and there is no place else to be.


What does this have to do with a double slit experiment? This experiment tends to suggest that we create "reality" by observing it. The "cold, calculating, and detached attitude" of objective science insists that we as individuals have no control in this creative process, and only some how function as creators/observers. There are other philosophies, however, that suggest differently and the Tao is one of them. We do have control in what we create, and in the English language, it is no coincidence that another word for Now is Present.

The Present of which we exist in Now was Pre-Sent to us by us from the Past. If we are not happy with this Present, we should also consider yet another meaning to the word Present, which is gift. Why would we not Pre-send to ourselves anything other than gifts? This is the non linear understanding of Now, which is always Here. You and I, and all of us, are Now Here. Which is to say we are NowHere. This is the wonder of the universe.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I agree with everything you said that I can wrap my mind around, this has always been to me the most important observation in all of science because the ramifications would not only affect us as a race but reality, at least as we perceive it as a whole. I have spent many a night thinking about what it actually means and I always find myself falling asleep with a smile because of the possibilities.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
And, yet, the metaphysical "implications" of the double-slit experiment are a result of a misunderstanding of the experiment. Not that I'm surprised - that people would rather run with the mystical than listen to the truth - but I have never been one to give people room for ignorance. My explanation was at the end of the last page, which might make it easy to miss, so here it is yet again:


Originally posted by CLPrime

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.


This is the physics involved in observing the double-slit experiment. There is no need for virtual realities or any other metaphysical explanation.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
This is the physics involved in observing the double-slit experiment. There is no need for virtual realities or any other metaphysical explanation.


Strongly agreed, and I did read the last one


Anyway, this is a field we are still exploring, but it is easy to jump to conclusions. This is fine, if realized in the form of hypothesis to be tested. But, it is misleading to make the jump without further testing. Many in the fields (using the term loosely) of metaphysics, new age, and others tend to do this constantly to support already present hypotheses without actual experimentation. It seems actual scientific progress never takes place within these areas, but new findings are constantly used to support opinion until we learn more about them.

The nature of science is generally open-ended, as we must subjectively interpret the objective data. However, we must maintain an air of uncertainty on the "whole picture," or else we fall victim to our own bias instead of strictly adhering to a scientific exploration.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 





And, yet, the metaphysical "implications" of the double-slit experiment are a result of a misunderstanding of the experiment. Not that I'm surprised - that people would rather run with the mystical than listen to the truth - but I have never been one to give people room for ignorance. My explanation was at the end of the last page, which might make it easy to miss, so here it is yet again:


The greatest tragedy of the modern day Western "scientist" is not his arrogance - though this arrogance is almost always on full display - but is his willful lack of imagination. This lack of imagination has led us down a road where fields such as psychiatry, and sociology are called "science" - even if colloquially referred to as "soft sciences", and then because they are touted as "science" will be introduced into institutions as an indoctrination, and the "experts" treated - ironically so - as a priest class lawyer set.

The modern day Western "scientist" will take great umbrage to the accusation that they are being dogmatic, and then refer to their dogma to explain to the "mystics" why their dogma is not dogma. Too often, all they really accomplish is allowing their dogma to be run over by their karma. It is inevitable that those who ignore karma will be run over by it.

Whatever it is you believe you "explained", hardly explains anything at all, and is merely what Watt's is speaking to in that "cold, calculating, detached attitude". You have done no better job of explaining the universe, and all that this entails than any mystic has. Replacing one dogma with another, and declaring it the better dogma, is not the same as deriving at truth.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


There is nothing wrong with my imagination. Trust me, I have enough fanciful theories about the universe to fill a book (a book I've tried several times to write...but my imagination unfortunately bows to my attention span).

What I have explained is how our observation directly affects the outcome of variations of the double-slit experiment - not with some metaphysical universe where reality is affected by observation, but by the physics, which is non-debatable.
Anyone who insists that the double-slit experiment is evidence of a perception-based reality must explain why the physical mechanisms of observation (the photosensitive plate in detecting photons, or the photon "echo" in detecting electrons) are not to blame.
edit on 20-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 





Anyone who insists that the double-slit experiment is evidence of a perception-based reality must explain why the physical mechanisms of observation (the photosensitive plate in detecting photons, or the photon "echo" in detecting electrons) are not to blame.


The only person in this thread that appears to be insisting, my fanciful friend, is you. Presumption of knowledge is not knowledge, it is arrogance.

We exist in a society today where "soft scientists" are paraded into court rooms as "experts", not because of any truth, but because of agreement. It is peoples agreement that these so called "experts" have knowledge in which to determine the truth. Take that agreement away, and what do you have then?

I myself, certainly did not insist on anything, and only offered up a different perspective. Insist all you like, my fanciful friend, if physics were all that were needed to understand the universe, quantum mechanics wouldn't even exist.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 


I would expect a scientists to know the difference, and I think they do. From what I've seen, it's mainly the writers that produce articles about the double slit experiment that inject the mystery about simply looking at something causing an effect.

At first I was very confused and thought this was a huge mystery, so I started looking around and read actual material in journals written by the scientists themselves. From what I gathered after reading, it's the instrumentation that is being used that causes the difference in results. They were discussing how they are trying to find new ways to observe/measure what was going on because of this.

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to say nothing interesting is happening here. There is a huge mystery, and that's what's actually happening during the experiment, the reason we don't know is because we cannot see what's happening. But it seems THAT mystery has been warped into a false mystery of how simply looking at something changes it, when in fact that isn't even true, in the sense that many articles would lead you to believe.

I'm not claiming to have any answers on what we are seeing in the double slit experiment, just trying to straighten out the misconception on how those results are coming about, meaning from inadequate observation tools that interfere with the experiment taking place, not some metaphysical power we have to change things by simply looking at them. My wind tunnel and fan example was pretty crude, but I hope it still got the point across pretty well. I have seen the double slit experiment used as an example of "mind powers" and other similar things (like this thread itself, which is based off a lack of understanding on why the 2 different results are coming about) which is why I figured I'd post.
edit on 20-6-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Presumption of knowledge is not knowledge, it is arrogance.

We exist in a society today where "soft scientists" are paraded into court rooms as "experts", not because of any truth, but because of agreement. It is peoples agreement that these so called "experts" have knowledge in which to determine the truth. Take that agreement away, and what do you have then?

I myself, certainly did not insist on anything, and only offered up a different perspective. Insist all you like, my fanciful friend, if physics were all that were needed to understand the universe, quantum mechanics wouldn't even exist.



I'm sure he can defend himself, but I think CLPrime is very justified in his attempt at clarification, because it appears that many people in this thread do not understand the double slit experiment. Here are examples:


Originally posted by tomten
...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



Originally posted by Sly1one
If the mere act of percieving or observing particles changes the way in which they act



Originally posted by Helious
The double slit would imply that matter does not actually exist unless it is observed



Originally posted by tomten

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.


Not at all trying to single people out here, just showing the apparent lack of understanding on the implications of the double slit experiment.

People are under the impression that the double slit experiment implies that the act of perceiving something changes it. I think the quotes I posted make that fairly obvious.

This, however, is not the case. The change of results, after observation, come from that fact that the instruments we are using to measure what is going on interfere with the experiment being carried out as it was, when it produced the previous result.

In other words, when using instruments to measure this phenomenon, the instruments themselves are changing the experiment, so when you change the experiment, obviously you get different results. It is not our brains, or eyes that are changing anything, but the tools we are using, this is the fundamental aspect that is misconstrued.

When the photons go through the experiment the first time, they are free to act with no interference other than the "wall" with two slits.

With the photons go through the experiment the second time, they are not free to act as they did originally, because we are interfering with our tools used to measure the photons. Thus, we get a different result.

I don't blame anyone for misunderstanding this, because as I said previously article writers and metaphysics proponents will often time misrepresent what the double slit experiment means, whether intentionally or not. Which is why when I saw these pretty serious claims about observers changing things simply by "watching" I investigated further, and found out that nobody is even claiming that observing something changes it, in the way people are saying.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
perhaps being a sentient being in this universe is a type of abstraction...
what we see/sense/have learned to know as being objects with mass is just a way of giving those energies a value in an abstract 'aether'

~toke~


or whatever



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 





People are under the impression that the double slit experiment implies that the act of perceiving something changes it. I think the quotes I posted make that fairly obvious.


I was not being off topic when I took the "soft sciences" to task, and more importantly how the perception of these "soft scientist" change things. As long as psychiatrists are treated as "scientists" instead of the religious order they appear to be, then they will be treated with a respect that carries quite a disturbing authority. Once that perception changes, so too does the disturbing authority.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend towards entropy, but it is observably so that closed systems outside of heat tend towards entropy as well. However, dare to suggest that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to all close systems, and invariably some dogmatist will come along and dismiss this because the math to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only in regards to heat systems.

No one needed Newton to write down the mathematical equation to gravity in order to know that gravity exists. It is nice Newton came along and did so, and it would be nice if someone would come along and do the math - differentials and not abstractions - to closed systems such as economies, or governments, or other organizations. But, Newton lived in an epoch we refer to as the Age of Enlightenment. That age is long over, and today we live in a day and age where dogmatists rule the day.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I can guarantee you I am saying this in a sincere way, but I'm a little lost on where you are going with that post. Not meant as an attack on you at all, I would just like a little clarification.

I could be simply misunderstanding things here, so just to get things straight on what I thought was going on:

Thread was started, with replies that implied people thought the double slit experiment showed that observing something changes it.

A few people, including me, were pointing out that isn't what the double slit experiment means.

I thought you were trying to say that isn't what people were implying, so I was showing that is what they were implying/believing. Was I correct in this assessment of your previous posts?

Like I said, this is honestly not meant as an attack, I am just a bit confused where you are going, and wanted some clarification.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


What I am saying is this: It is observably so that our perceptions of "things" can and do affect the outcome of "things".

A martial artist who uses his fist to break wood, or stone, applies both the "cold, calculating, detached attitude" of the objective and will spend many years hardening his fist, but this alone will not break the wood, or stone, and they also rely upon something else altogether in order to accomplish this feat. Call it "chi" or whatever you want, the martial artist does not rely solely upon "science" in order to change reality.

You have been, in my estimation, most respectful in your attempts to explain your own perception of the double slit experiment. Our fanciful friend, not so respectful, and in his arrogance fumbled and stumbled through language, often contradicting himself, while all the way dismissing those of whose posts he did not agree with as being "ignorant". This is why I took him to task.

The most disturbing attitude of our fanciful friend is that he kept falling back on physics to "explain" an experiment borne of quantum mechanics, or for the purposes of this post more correctly "quantum theory".

Why do we have quantum theory?


Classical (Newtonian) mechanics works perfectly in explaining the world around us, and is accurate enough for even charting the trajectory of probes sent to Jupiter and beyond. So why are we not content with classical physics? Where does the need for quantum theory arise? Quantum theory unveils a new level of reality, the world of intrinsic uncertainty, a world of possibilities, which is totally absent in classical physics. And this bizarre world of quantum physics not only offers us the most compelling explanation of physical phenomena presently known, but is also one of the most prolific source of modern technologies, providing society with a cornucopia of devices and instruments.


A "world of intrinsic uncertainty, a world of possibilities, which is totally absent in classical physics." Our fanciful friends heavy reliance on classical physics to dismiss peoples interpretation of an experiment borne of quantum mechanics is more than just amusing, it illustrates the power of perception, and how that reflects reality.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Exactly.

There is a big difference between depicting the universe as a reality affected by our perception, and using the double-slit experiment to prove such a concept.


To Jean Paul Zodeaux (and anyone else who disagrees with what I've said):

I have nothing against the claim that our reality is beyond what we experimentally experience. Personally, I have beliefs in favour of this. But, the double-slit experiment can in no way be considered evidence of it. And that's what this thread is about.
People have taken their (often understandable) misunderstanding of the double-slit experiment and applied it to esoteric concepts, but the experiment suggests no such concepts. It merely illustrates the affect that our physical techniques of observation have on what we observe. Nothing metaphysical... just physical.

But, that does not preclude the existence of the metaphysical. Want proof that I truly believe this? Ask me what I do for a "living".
edit on 20-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 





But, the double-slit experiment can in no way be considered evidence of it. And that's what this thread is about.


Yet, even more evidence of how perception affects reality. To you this is what the thread is about. Here is what the O.P. states:




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?


The O.P. does not even ask "what is the cause", but instead asks people what they "think can be the cause". People took up her invitation and answered. Your "explanation", I have no doubt, was a necessary and beneficial addition to that discussion...and then you allowed your arrogance to take over.

This arrogance clouds your judgement so much so that you have come to believe that I disagree with your "explanation". I keep placing the word explanation in quotes because I am not sure what it is you think you explained, other than the physics of a quantum mechanics experiment. I have no issues with your "explanation" only your imprudent impudence.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The OP, indeed, questioned if the double-slit experiment could be caused by a "bug" in the system, but this was an imprudent question based on a faulty assumption of what the double-slit experiment demonstrates. I merely attempted to remove the faulty assumption by explaining the physical nature of the double-slit experiment. Once this physical nature is established, there is no room for any "system" for there to be a "bug" in... at least, not as far as the double-slit experiment is concerned.

My apparent arrogance was a result of not being heard. It wasn't arrogance, so much as impatience. And I apologize.
edit on 20-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I see what your getting at now. I appreciate you being patient with me and not taking offense, because as I said, that wasn't my intent, but it's kind of difficult to ask "what are you talking about" without sounding rude or insulting, if you know what I mean


Anyway,

I am still totally open to the possibility of "super-human" abilities if you could call them that. I have seen and read too much about such things to just dismiss the idea outright. In addition to your example of "chi" with regards to martial artists, there are also the monks that can manipulate their own bodies, and external things, with nothing but their minds, and IIRC they also are taking advantage of the "chi" concept. I'll have to admit my own ignorance here though, as I have looked into such things, but never delved terribly deep into that subject matter, so that's all I can say about that.

But, I am discussing more specifically just the double slit experiment as it relates to such things. Like I just said, I don't deny or dismiss the possibility of a whole spectrum of physics that we have not even begun to understand, I just don't think the double slit experiment is something that would point to any of that, in the sense of the human mind altering or changing events.

The initial idea that a human can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came from the results of the double slit experiment being different, depending on whether or not we were measuring the photons at the actual slit.

Both times the experiment is being observed. So, if observation causes it to change, why aren't the results the same both times? It's because Observation isn't the key issue effecting the outcome. It's the manner of observation.

The photons make the mysterious pattern on the "wall" after they pass through the slits. We can observe this without interfering with the way the photons are behaving as they pass through the slits.

But the part we want to figure out, is what exactly is going on as those photons are reaching, and passing through the slits. So we try to observe them at the moment they are passing through the slits.

The problem is, the only ways we currently have to observe them as they pass through the slits, also interfere with their behavior at the slits, which is the reason the outcome/results of the experiment start to change when we observe their behavior at that specific location.

What we need is a passive way to see what's going on at the slits. We have a passive way to see what pattern they make after they pass through the slits.

So basically it boils down to, if us observing this experiment is causing the difference in results, then there shouldn't be two different results, because BOTH times the experiment is done it is STILL being observed. It's just the fact that during observation at the slits, we can only measure it with interfering, where as measuring the pattern made after the slits is non-interfering, this is what causes the two different results, not some sort of mind power being projected onto the experiment.

But I still have to repeat what I said, I don't want to seem as if I am trying to rule out the mind's power. But in regards to the slit experiment, the minds power is of no consequence to the two different results that we get.

Just wanted to thank you again for your patience, and I hope you feel I am showing you the same respect that you showed me with my posts.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 





My apparent arrogance was a result of not being heard. It wasn't arrogance, so much as impatience. And I apologize.


Brother, you are most certainly being "heard". There are more people reading this thread than just the ones posting in this site, and there are more than just members who will read this thread. Your "voice" is reaching out to more people than you can measurably know.

No apologies are necessary. It is not the right or wrongness of the issue that matters, only the truth. Be patient brother, and let people arrive at the truth in their own time, and their own fashion. Misunderstanding the double slit experiment will not destroy the universe, and not even the universe of quantum mechanics, and quite possibly some of these misunderstandings just might lead to a greater understanding of it all...or maybe not...either way, it is the journey that is most enjoyable.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Fair enough.
Some of mankind's greatest achievements have come from our greatest mistakes and misunderstandings.
And perhaps the reality of the physicists who believe in nothing esoteric is molded to fit their observations...in which case, no matter how wrong we are to other people, we're still right in our own minds.
Or maybe that's just an excuse to keep thinking we're always right





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join