It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But, the double-slit experiment can in no way be considered evidence of it. And that's what this thread is about.
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?
My apparent arrogance was a result of not being heard. It wasn't arrogance, so much as impatience. And I apologize.