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

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Frira
 


That's alright...I love to talk.

Is is possible that the "changing states" of the photon, that you're referring to, is with respect to its quantum state - which, as far as a photon in concerned, is its spin? This can either be spin-up (+1) or spin-down (-1), but not both.

As far as wave-particle duality, it's common to think that a particle is a particle under some conditions and a wave under others. It's actually always a combination of both, and the method of observation is what isolates one side or the other.

I guess the first step in understanding this is to abandon the idea that a "particle" is a physical object. It's not, It's merely a set of intrinsic data (spin, charge, and mass) located at some point in space. It's like data on a computer... what you see as an entire working program is really just a bunch of magnetic 1s and 0s on a disk. In the same way, what we measure to be a physical particle is really just a bunch of properties "hard-coded" into a given point in space.
And this data is free to move around, within bounds. These bounds are described by the wave-function, which defines the probability of the data being found in any given region or location.

The wave-function, then, could be seen as a cage. It defines where the data (which we observe as a particle) is allowed to go, and the data is unable to go outside that wave-shaped cage.

The double-slit experiment causes the wave/cage to interfere with itself as it passes through the slits. When the particle/data follows that wave/cage, then, it follows the interference pattern. The particle/data, itself, is not a wave, but its boundaries are defined by a wave-shape.

I didn't think I could make wave-particle duality this simple
If I start talking about posits, primeons, and the Prime-Ruggles Hypothesis, slap me, please.


If you do, I'll simply look them up!

Okay, spin perhaps, and thus gives us charge. I can buy that. But mass seems impossible. Whatever the "thing" of light is, its traveling at the speed of light gives two options:no mass, or infinite mass; so no mass.

A thing with no mass seems like the description of a thing with only two spacial dimensions-- you mention a theoretical point (no dimension). But a theoretical point with no geometry cannot spin. For fun, if it did, then any rotation would be at an infinite velocity... I think. But anyway... A line can flip, but not spin, so I still need one more dimension. So, I like a disk (or a rim of a disk) with a "most tiny" diameter, which can not only spin to give us charge, but can also be flipped to give us frequency, and thus wave property, as it travels from its source.

What we perceive and measure as light is not emitted from the thing but its effect on the space through which it passes. That is how I conceptualize it in the not quite vacuum of my mind.

If I'm close, the mystery likely is in how does detecting and storing and then erasing data effect the space. In fact, the erase portion of the experiment points to the storage of data and not the observation as the cause of the observed effect. That removes us a step from the supposed cause, doesn't it?

I can't be the first to have thought of that-- but I cannot find any information and the details of the eraser mechanism.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


You can try to look them up, but it won't get you anywhere. The Prime-Ruggles Hypothesis (now called, by me, Augustic Mechanics) is a theory a friend and I had from a while back, that I've been tweaking ever since. It tried to explain all of this stuff. And it works, up to a point - and the point where the theory breaks down is Quantum Entanglement. So, I have another theory to explain that.

But anywho... that's an interesting idea - differentiating between the photon/particle and the space around it. I've come close, but never really got to thinking of it like that. I might have to start. In fact, I'll probably be thinking about this all day now.

The spin of a particle, though, is theorized to not be an actual physical rotation of the object. It's just thought of as an intrinsic property of a particle, which causes it to deviate from a straight path through a magnetic field as if it were a spinning charge. It's one of those "acts like but isn't really" properties... according to the current Standard Model. Though, the Prime-Ruggles Hypothesis would respectfully disagree.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Frira
 


You can try to look them up, but it won't get you anywhere. The Prime-Ruggles Hypothesis (now called, by me, Augustic Mechanics) is a theory a friend and I had from a while back, that I've been tweaking ever since. It tried to explain all of this stuff. And it works, up to a point - and the point where the theory breaks down is Quantum Entanglement. So, I have another theory to explain that.

But anywho... that's an interesting idea - differentiating between the photon/particle and the space around it. I've come close, but never really got to thinking of it like that. I might have to start. In fact, I'll probably be thinking about this all day now.

The spin of a particle, though, is theorized to not be an actual physical rotation of the object. It's just thought of as an intrinsic property of a particle, which causes it to deviate from a straight path through a magnetic field as if it were a spinning charge. It's one of those "acts like but isn't really" properties... according to the current Standard Model. Though, the Prime-Ruggles Hypothesis would respectfully disagree.



Didn't see that coming! Primeons! Alright.
I cannot remember having such an interesting distraction as this-- hopping from one encyclopedic article to the next with an occasion side venture into some material apparently prepared for high school or college use.

I stay in contact with an old friend who is a physicist, and although his work is practical application rather than theoretical, he was able to pass along this title what seems the perfect book for me:

Polkinghorne, John, Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship

The author is described in a review as "theoretical physicist and Anglican priest."

Modern quantum physics sure looks a lot like classical metaphysics. Goodness, but we still find ourselves having to talk around or redefine terms from alchemy because Newtonian did not really help; but now a new and more precise vocabulary is available (e.g., we have been saddled with "the accidents remain," but now might speculate upon the same concept by saying "particulate in observation, but trans-dimensional in both essence and effect").

You may, then, understand that my own bias for the eleven or fourteen (or however many) dimensions will include that reality-- as we observe it --can, and at least sometimes does, also exist in one or more of the other dimensions as unobserved in a provable mode, but none-the-less having effect.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
 


The author is described in a review as "theoretical physicist and Anglican priest."


Interesting. I would probably be described as "amateur theoretical physicist and non-denominational preacher." Though, I'd put the preacher part first.

And I'm rather fond of the descriptor, "particulate in observation, but trans-dimensional in both essence and effect." I'd hesitate to think of "trans-dimensional" in terms of additional physical dimensions, as in String Theory, but I would certainly consider it with respect to certain 'layers' of the Quantum world that don't seem to be observable by us. I would say, they're not on a separate dimension, they're just beyond our ability to perceive. In fact, I would say, the underlying nature of Quantum Mechanics is the only truly real thing in our reality, and what we perceive is merely an illusion produced by that underlying Quantum nature.

It's that second theory of mine that I mentioned before (the one that explains Entanglement) that, beyond Entanglement, really attempts to describe what that true underlying nature is.

Like I said I would, I've been considering the double-slit experiment in light of our conversation, and, I must say, I'm still thinking it over. At least, if I haven't given up on it by now, that means it's not completely unreasonable. Not to me, anyway. Though, we're probably lucky that I'm not the one who was entrusted with the responsibility of creating the universe.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Frira
 


The author is described in a review as "theoretical physicist and Anglican priest."


Interesting. I would probably be described as "amateur theoretical physicist and non-denominational preacher." Though, I'd put the preacher part first.

And I'm rather fond of the descriptor, "particulate in observation, but trans-dimensional in both essence and effect." I'd hesitate to think of "trans-dimensional" in terms of additional physical dimensions, as in String Theory, but I would certainly consider it with respect to certain 'layers' of the Quantum world that don't seem to be observable by us. I would say, they're not on a separate dimension, they're just beyond our ability to perceive. In fact, I would say, the underlying nature of Quantum Mechanics is the only truly real thing in our reality, and what we perceive is merely an illusion produced by that underlying Quantum nature.

It's that second theory of mine that I mentioned before (the one that explains Entanglement) that, beyond Entanglement, really attempts to describe what that true underlying nature is.

Like I said I would, I've been considering the double-slit experiment in light of our conversation, and, I must say, I'm still thinking it over. At least, if I haven't given up on it by now, that means it's not completely unreasonable. Not to me, anyway. Though, we're probably lucky that I'm not the one who was entrusted with the responsibility of creating the universe.


"...certain 'layers' of the quantum world..."

Ah! There is my good meat to chew on for a while!

Leaves room for what is perceived by that third or inner eye-- what poets call a muse, what mystics call visions, what John Nash once called aliens, and much, much more. And there is much, much more.

By the way, casual reading on String Theory some time ago got my attention-- so I know more (still very little) about it and the assumptions associated with it than anything else-- I am by no means a proponent-- more than theory, what I found exciting and inspiring was nothing more than the "mere" genius of thought which conceived it.

So, bring on the Prime-Quantum-Theory!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Yes is does! Every reality frame you experience is a result of simulation done by Consciousness and various systems in it. Isn't a dream reality such? Your own consciousness simulates it. Why would physical be different?
Double-slit experiment demonstrates:
- reality is probability-based;
- only "now" is real or relevant;
- reality actualizes (it is rendered to consciousness) only when needed, i.e. the data about objects and players is queried (just like any well-optimized computer game's rendering engine).
- etc.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


The Quantum Theory, illustrated in a video.


Google Video Link


edit on 2011-6-24 by tomten because: fixed video number



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
 


"...certain 'layers' of the quantum world..."

Ah! There is my good meat to chew on for a while!

Leaves room for what is perceived by that third or inner eye-- what poets call a muse, what mystics call visions, what John Nash once called aliens, and much, much more. And there is much, much more.


Of course, I wouldn't consider Nash's paranoid schizophrenia a Quantum effect. I also wouldn't consider any of those Quantum 'layers' to be responsible for any sort of metaphysical phenomenon. The laws of this universe are, in my opinion, purely physical. If our perceptions and experiences could influence, or be influenced by, the Quantum word, then we would have direct contact with the very fabric of this reality, and I don't believe that, as humans, we have that sort of power. Humans like to play God with the power we know we have, let alone any power we may have over the physical (that is, physics-related, not material) foundation of the universe.


By the way, casual reading on String Theory some time ago got my attention-- so I know more (still very little) about it and the assumptions associated with it than anything else-- I am by no means a proponent-- more than theory, what I found exciting and inspiring was nothing more than the "mere" genius of thought which conceived it.


You should do some casual reading on Loop Quantum Gravity.

Interestingly enough, back in high school (oh so long ago
a whole 4 years ago), a friend and I used to get into conversations about the small-scale structure of the universe. And, ultimately, every conversation would end up as:

Him: "So, what are quarks made of?"
Me: "They're made of tiny vibrating strings."
Him: "And what are those strings made of?"
Me: "Nothing."
Him: "They have to be made of something."
Me: "No, they don't."
Him: "Yes, they do."
Me: "No, they don't."
Him: "Yes, they do."
Me: "No, they don't."
Him: "Yes, they do."

...until the bell would ring, or someone else would tell us to shut up.
No matter what 'smallest structure' we come up with, someone will always ask, "Well, what's that made of?" And there has to be an answer. I can't just keep saying "No, they don't" forever... I'll die of starvation.


So, bring on the Prime-Quantum-Theory!


I'll bring it on if you first do some casual reading of Loop Quantum Gravity


I actually told my high school Physics teacher that, before long, she'd be teaching my theories. She said she was looking forward to it... even though, when she read the summary of it I wrote at the time, it was over her head.
edit on 24-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I disagree. But the double slit experiment does show that we perceive the world differently and even change the out come of it. Compared to other students, I had saw a lot more wave infractions. From our capturing technology, a lot of the waves seemed less apparent to others.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by James1982
 


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)


Since nobody asked it, it is my duty. What are you doing for a "living" sir, are you a physicist?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
That would explain the afterlife

many people that died and came back had a brief moment out of the simulation
in reality in here we are quite powerless and our body is very fragile
this simulation is probably another reality for some kind of a test

that would also explain the reincarnation theory



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


Thank you for asking. I'm only an amateur physicist, but my self-education spans everything from this double-slit experiment to the basic mathematical foundation of String Theory (which I put to good use in the infamous "I am a Scientist" thread from a few days ago).

For a "living", though, I'm a preacher.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tomten
 




Nope, it proves how little we know.
2nd



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thanks for the answer. What an interesting combination you have. We would live in another world if the preachers or the imams were as open minded as you. You reminded me the book of Hegels "Faith and Knowledge".



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by strNick
 


So, here's a theory that I have come up with. I just now typed this up after a brainstorming session today, so feel free to poke any holes in it that you see.

All paths of time are happening right now. There are an infinite number of paths that can be taken. However, we are also constantly observing the path that we take, so the number of paths that can be chosen shrinks from infinity to one. And this happens over and over and over again. Every fraction of a millisecond, every day. This is why we can only perceive time in a straight line. It’s because we are constantly measuring it, even when we are asleep. It’s because of the matter that we are made of… 3D matter.

As for the double slit experiment, when we observe the result, we change it. This is because the photon actually lives in the 4th dimension. When we make an observation, we can only observe it using 3D methods. Thus, we achieve a 3D result – a particle.

The “waves” that we see are, in fact, the effect that the photon has on our visible dimensions. Imagine that you throw a pebble into a lake. The effects that the pebble has on the water are waves. This is similar to the photon. The waves that we see in the double slit experiment are the same effect that the photon has on our dimensions. Our lake, if you will. However, if we want to measure the pebble, we don’t measure the waves, we look for the pebble, and we measure that.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by todrules
 


In the course of my own physics ponderings, that idea has occurred to me, as well...or, at least, something very similar. I've abandoned it, but I would encourage you to keep going with the idea... we don't have much luck when everyone's thinking along the same wavelength.
Given how vague the idea is, the way you've described it, it's hard to say where exactly it's lacking, or where it's strengths are. All the more reason to keep going with it, and flesh it out a little...if you're interested in doing so, of course.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted 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:


You pointed the obvious out several times and i agree and showing someone you can make fire does not mean we are in a simulation however i do suspect we are in a simulation because we humans will soon have the computing power to take sim-city to a level where life as we experience it can be processed.

Take DNA which is base four and you have the machine code of a object known as a person object with methords, properties and events.

Now where does god fit in (Hang around a second)

is god the programer, the program or the operating systme, the CPU, the machine, the network or what.

What if the thing that programmed us is in a simulation itself and if that sounds stupid then consider that in second life you can stream the news into your virtual TV.

even thinking about this will blow your mind but after much thought i reached the conclusion that it should not change your life unless you are religious

I don't realy know where sleeping would fit in to this theory however i think i may had come up with a way of testing the theory and get freaked when little bits surface now and then that are not connected directly to this theroletical experiment i have in mind and its as if the experiment will be discovered and tested one way or another by accident.

Ask no questions and i will tell no lies on that one.

Still if you want to think that every physical thing in the universe all came from a singularity that was smaller than a pin head and time never started or ends and Darwin and the big bang does it for you then your not alone and for all I know you could be right so i'm off to bang my head on the floor to prove that i hurt therefore i am



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Master_007
 


If it's any consolation (so you don't go banging your head too hard), I have a short story about people who find themselves in a universal simulation. The life they've been living has actually been an advanced computer simulation which has been created by people in our future facing extinction due to some sort of genetic malfunction. What these dying future people did was create a super-simulation and allowed it to self-evolve until it got so good at simulating people that it actually created a few real people, who were then removed from the simulation to restart the human race once the rest die off.
I like that story.
It's called Soft Rains (a reference to the poem There Will Come Soft Rains, by Sara Teasdale).

What was I talking about again?

Ah yes...right. So, I'm quite open to the idea of this universe being a simulation. At the very least, in fiction.
However, as far as "real"-world physics is concerned, I might also be willing to consider this all a simulation, even though I am a Christian (I feel like I've been self-promoting lately, but it just keeps coming up... I'm a preacher), because I have no problem with believing that God created the universe as a simulation. It's our human prejudices that would like to believe that what we see is real, but our prejudices also led us to believe that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Just because we like to believe things, it doesn't make them so.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomten
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?





If you compare it to a computer program, a more fitting analogy would be the computer program drawing the frames you need. When you play a videogame, the program only draws what you are looking at, what you are not looking at exists as information and will be outputted through your videocard when you look at it.

Or even more fitting, seen as we are not the user, but part of the program, information changes when we interact with it. If we do not interact with it it is stored away in an efficient form.





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

log in

join