It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by boncho
I have been saying that for months!
Nobody gives me any stars. what gives?
We need to pursue "mechanistic thinking" to get at the true answers.
Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by chr0naut
We need to pursue "mechanistic thinking" to get at the true answers.
Do you mean like realizing the difference between "observing" and mechanical interaction? Do you have any math to support this idea! I'm with you on this. Attributing the loss of air pressure when you place the gauge on the valve stem to observational effect is ridiculous. Electronic TPMS can indicate psi all day without affecting the pressure. That's just one pathetic example but I find it extremely indicative of basic problems with what passes for evidence.
This much is true and we completely agree on. In fact as you know I agree with the vast majority of your posts here and I think you're an excellent contributor to this site. However I can't really agree with this:
Originally posted by boncho
If a bunch of weirdos come out of the woodwork and claim things that can't be backed by scientific method, then quite simply, it is not science, it is a faith based construct.
I can't guarantee this wikipedia article is 100% correct, but in concept, I do happen to agree more or less with this assessment:
There is no such thing as "Mainstream" Science.
Because there is no opposite to it. You cannot have "Fringe" Science, or anything of the like. It is either science or it's not. One or the other.
Three classifications of scientific ideas have been identified (center, frontier, fringe) with mainstream scientists typically regarding fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1] However, according to Rosenthal "Accepted science may merge into frontier science, which in turn may merge into more far-out ideas, or fringe science. Really wild ideas may be considered beyond the fringe, or pseudoscientific."
So there was some evidence for this idea:
Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle. Wegener was not the first to notice this puzzle-like fit of the continents (Magellan and other early explorers also noticed this on their maps), but he was one of the first to realize that the Earth's surface has changed through time, and that continents that are separated now may have been joined together at one point in the past.
Paleontologists had also found that there were fossils of similar species found on continents that are now separated by great geographic distance. Paleoclimate studies, which concerns examining the climate in Earth's past, revealed that glaciers covered large areas of the world which also are now separated by great geographic distances. These observations seemed to indicate that the Earth's lithosphere had been moving over geologic time.
Wegener's ideas were very controversial because he didn't have an explanation for why the continents moved, just that there was observational evidence that they had.
Three classifications of scientific ideas have been identified (center, frontier, fringe) with mainstream scientists typically regarding fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1] However, according to Rosenthal "Accepted science may merge into frontier science, which in turn may merge into more far-out ideas, or fringe science. Really wild ideas may be considered beyond the fringe, or pseudoscientific."
The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.
Originally posted by chr0naut
Yes, in the case of the quantum realm, we are most often looking at populations of particles and the process of observation is throwing one lot of particles against another to see how they "bounce".
What I am also getting at is that our perceived consciousness is entirely dependent on its substrate of quantum reality. When we see, say, wave particle duality expressing exclusively in a particular mode and seeming to be dependent upon our observation, it seems that no-one is thinking that the observation is dependent upon observed, and not that the observed is dependent on the observation.
In words; we cannot observe what does not exist to observe. Hence, it is the state of reality which determines the outcome of observation. Consciousness need not play any part. The mechanism that creates the situation that we observe is not the consciousness of the observer by some weird action, but consists of forces and actions that are more mundane and are perhaps too small or diffuse for us to detect.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Hey chr0naut, can you clarify this a little further. An electron, when observed acts as a particle. When it is not observed it acts as a wave. This to me sounds like the observed being enitirely dependent on the act of observation, not the observation being dependent on the observer.
Originally posted by yampa
This is almost certainly false. There is no wave/particle duality, and it has even less connection with the conscious observation of humans. Simply shifting the causality to the human consciousness does nothing to explain the mechanisms underlying the observed fields, in fact, doing that is at least one degree of abstraction worse than the already mostly unmechanical theories of Quantum Mechanics.
Giving particles (including 'virtual particles') real spin, understanding the possibilities of physical stacked spins, and recognising that all matter is emitting EM particles at all times solves the apparent paradoxes of superposition, duality and entanglement. And it's fairly easy to draw a little sketch to show how that works.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
So how is it that you know this, and yet these paradoxes still remain for many of the world’s most eminent physicist? Also what do you mean by 'spin', and how exactly does the concept of subatomic particles emitting EM particles solve these paradoxes?
Originally posted by yampa
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
So how is it that you know this, and yet these paradoxes still remain for many of the world’s most eminent physicist? Also what do you mean by 'spin', and how exactly does the concept of subatomic particles emitting EM particles solve these paradoxes?
I wouldn't say I know it, it's just a way better explanation than I've seen anyone else come up with. It is not my idea, but I have not much interest in promoting others at this moment.
Spin, like, rotating. Like a pool ball. Consider that a particle with a linear velocity can be rotating axially, and if you add an additional motion, outside this axial spin, then the linear travel of the particle will appear to 'wave'. There is no duality. Photons are simply small, physical particles with slightly complex stacked spins. The idea that you must use probabilistic math to track those motions is a joke. And people will laugh at those who fell for it, in the future.
If electons are emitting EM particles, then anything you have constructed a sensor from is also emitting particles. The emission from this sensor, the emission from the other aspects of you experiment, can and will cause perturbation in the motions of your observed particle. This is trivially shown by the existence of passive laser waveshaping apertures.