Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by aboriginee
 





And now I think, you should read my last post once more, which you`ve answered to in the above shown text. That`s what I wrote and what I meant: Although the which-pass-information was there and detected by the first detector, the screen showed already an interference-pattern, although this information of interference was given to the particle after that.


No you simply misunderstood what they actually meant, which becomes obvious if you study the complete experiment.

The particles had already hit the screen when they check the detectors that show either the which path info, or show that the which path info is not known.

In both cases, if they look at the screen after they checked the detectors and know the which path or not, the pattern on the screen always corresponds with what they know, or don't know, even though at the time the particles hit the screen it was still open.




And that`s nothing about consciousness. Quantum-particles don`t act within our time in order to get information, in some regions ore actions they stand above time.


I see, and why do you think they specifically mention what the experimenter knows here?



However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.


It's obviously about what the experimenter knows.





And something about my citation you posted at the end of your above text: Please don`t cut off my texts - the meaning of my statements could change by doing that.


You mean this line that show that you don't understand the way this exp. is set up?



But in the delayed choise quantum eraser experiment the interference pattern appears, although the particle has been measured. The which-path-information, that simultaniously can be observed on the first detector, will then be erased shortly after that.


The way it is setup, it is impossible to simultaniously see the interference pattern on the screen, and the which path info on the detector and to erase it.

If the idler particle is detected at detectors 1 or 2 there is no which path info that can be determined, if the idler is detected at D3 or D4, then they know which path info. AFTER that, they check the screen and see that the pattern matches with what they have learned from the detectors, even though the particles have hit the screen before the idlers have hit any of the detectors.
edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 





From what I can understand, the only variable in this experiment was whether or not the scientists knew the measurement or not. The machines had already taken the measurement, but the data was erased, meaning they never saw it. Is that right? If that's the case, I can't see how you can keep claiming that consciousness doesn't come into effect here.


That is exactly the case, and I can't see how he can either.

Just read his last posts that were directed at someone else, obviously he refuses to respond to my debunks of his claims, and he is still spreading false information which I had already pointed out to him.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





That is what I meant; the use of the term 'observation' is traditional in English and possibly in other languages as well. I certainly didn't mean it had to be seen by a human observer. In most quantum experiments that is impossible anyway. Strictly speaking, this is what we mean by 'measurement' or 'observation': we cause the system described by the wavefunction to interact with another system, which imposes fixed values on certain variables in the function. Consciousness certainly does not come into it – I suppose our New Age friend imagines Alice, Bob and Victor as three lab-coated scientists peering into a box, but actually they are just machines.


Sigh, here we go again, if it is the interaction of the detector with the particle that is making the interference pattern collapse, then how come an interference pattern is still seen if the info of detection is erased right after.

This proves it was not the interaction from the detector but the availability of the which path info. Again, why would this matter? And why are you both ignoring this?

Like I already said, who is checking these machines? Human observers, off course they use machines, they can't see the particles with their own eyes, they do the observing for them. Like I said before, and you refused to respond to it, and now you are saying the same dumb stuff to another poster and trying to have a go at me, be a man and respond to me.

What's the point of placing detectors if the experimenters don't read them with their consciousness, what's the point?

Why don't you respond to the fact that even the research you posted yourself suggests that particles somehow know something?

You haven't answered any of my questions and you sure haven't debunked my statements and now you are here talking to others like nothing happened, spreading info that I showed to be incorrect.

You are a joke.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I suppose our New Age friend imagines Alice, Bob and Victor as three lab-coated scientists peering into a box, but actually they are just machines.


This just shows what a liar you are, this is what I wrote about that in my previous post wich you refuse to respond to,




But you are hilarious nonetheless, it is completely obvious that the detectors called Bob, Alice and Victor are checked by human experimenters. Otherwise there would be no experiment and no conclusion.


You are pathetic. I clearly said that they are in fact detectors, machines, but that they are obviously checked by humans. Why have detectors if you don't check their read outs?




. It makes no difference; but the one thing you can't do is change the pattern on the screen after it has formed. And you can only look at it after it has formed.


BS, this is exactly what you can do and what makes this exp, so bizarre. At this point you are deliberately spreading false info, cause this has been shown to you 4 or 5 times already.


Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of causing the outcome of an event after the event has already occurred. In other words, something that happens at time t apparently reaches back to some time t - 1 and acts as a determining causal factor at that earlier time






Consciousness, therefore, can be ruled out as having any effect on the outcome of the experiment. The whole thing is entirely automatic, done with machines; you could run the experiment overnight, with machines inserting and removing the various polarizing filters and changing screens every so often according to some predetermined schedule or random program, and come back in the morning to read exactly what happened, hour after hour, by looking at the traces on the screens. You would always see the expected result: filters out, fringes; filters in, pattern of dots.


Lol, and what is checking the results, and looking how particles detected either at d1-2 or d3-4 correspond with patterns on the screen?

Human consciousness. I love it how you can't even write that part without even including human consciousness and you don't even realize it.

edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Ok so I read the article again and read over the thread again, so I think I have a decent understanding of what's going on here, even if we are only dealing with an approximate model.

There's a lot of points I want to make so I might break it down into multiple posts. Apologies if the terminology isn't exactly right but I think this is the gist of it.

To summarise and extremely simplify, to see if I have the basic understanding right:

1. Send photons through the double-slit, an interference pattern is formed.
2. Measure which slit they go through and only dots are formed based on which slot the photon passed through.
3. Repolarise them, effectively erasing the measurement from 2 and the interference pattern is formed again.
4. Do 1,2 and 3 with 2 seperate pairs of entangled photons, then either entangle the 2 seperate ones at the end or not. If entangled at the end, both pairs tend to show the same results. If not entangled, both pairs show random results.

So I kind of get what Astyanax is saying about this being a quantum system and by measuring at some time in the future it intrinsically effects what happened in the past. Basically its all one system contained within itself which "moves" forward and backwards through time. Time t in this case being like a property or variable that can be changed. Information isn't really "travelling through time" in the sense that we understand it. Its more like the photons are connected instantly "through" time.

However, from our perspective (in 3D space), it appears that information is travelling through time. In terms of traditional Newtonian physics, this is impossible and I think that's the main point of the article. In terms of how lay-people understand the world and especially time, this is impossible. It leads me to believe that both Newtonian Physics and our understanding of the world is wrong.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Re: Consciousness.

Ok so Astyanax, you are looking at this experiment as a completely closed system. The machines make the measurements and cause the wave function to collapse. If you only consider the experiment as the closed system then I agree that consciousness has no effect.

However, the system and experiment are not closed. The information/measurement from the detectors also passes from the detectors to the scientists when they read the data. This no doubt also involves quantum wave functions and photons, not to mention whatever conscious processes happen once that information passes into the brain of the scientist. The result of this is that the scientist now knows, or is conscious of, which slit the photon passed through.

This is why we are saying that consciousness affected the experiment - because the ultimate destination of the measurements are the conscious mind of the scientist. However I can see why there has been arguments about this, because this can't be proven one way or another.

Consider that we are now looking at a larger system with many more variables involved. The system involves the experiment but also the scientist and as you said yourself, in a way, the entire universe. Consider then that the scientist runs the experiment over night like you said, but hasn't looked at the results yet. The experiment itself could now be in a quantum state, like Schrodinger's Cat. The scientist doesn't know what state the results are in until he looks.

The question then becomes: Is it actually the machines which cause the wave function to collapse? Or does the scientist looking at the data cause it to become certain, which then determines the outcome of the experiment? I am assuming that any amount of time can pass between the experiment being done and the data being looked at.

As I said, there's no way to prove this one way or another, because we can't observe anything without observing it. And that's the point - there is no way to tell whether or not the machine or the scientist caused the result. We assume its the machine, because we are trained to dismiss subjective effects of the scientist. However I think this isn't right, because everything is subjective, it just can't be any other way - all data in science, all the time, somewhere along the line passed through the consciousness of a human being.

So for all intents and purposes, the machine acts as an extension of our consciousness, which is why consciousness affects the experiment.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Sorry to see you all have found a way to argue about such a beautiful notion as the title of this thread. Perhaps this video can provide a different, and more entertaining, context within which to understand the experiment:




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanistConsciousness or the power of an electromagnetic field. Perhaps a combination of both. Remind yourself what is being used as an observer then take a crack at pilot waves:


I'm not too sure what you mean by the part about what is being used as an observer either.

This video is awesome though - possibly the first hard evidence that things behave similarly on the macro scale as in the quantum world? It was really interesting how the waves seemed to guide the particle.

As above, so below


I can't help but think this has something to do with different dimensions. It makes perfect sense if you consider time the 4th dimension. Then changing the value of t is no different than changing the value of x, y or z.

Like in the video about flatland by Carl Sagan, consider the silicone drops like the apple - a projection from another dimension onto the liquid, which is flatland. Flatland observers (us) can only see the point at which the silicone drop hits the surface and the waves which form because of it. Then consider that a photon may be the projection of "something" down from another dimension and we only see the ripples it creates. Moving information through time and space is just like Carl picking up the apple and dropping it at another location.

It looks to us like the information is travelling instantly or even backwards in time, but really it is just moving in another dimension which we can't see.

If anything I just typed is true - and I hope it is - then think of the possibilities. How about being able to instantly travel anywhere in time and space? How about exploring other dimensions? What about realising that we actually consciously create reality by observing it?

Sign me up



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 





So I kind of get what Astyanax is saying about this being a quantum system and by measuring at some time in the future it iintrinsically effects what happened in the past. Basically its all one system contained within itself which "moves" forward and backwards through time. Time t in this case being like a property or variable that can be changed. Information isn't really "travelling through time" in the sense that we understand it. Its more like the photons are connected instantly "through" time.


Like I suggested before, time doesn't exist outside of human perception. and it doesn't even matter, the results are always direcrtly in line with what the experimenter knows after he has checked the detectors, and either knows the which path info, or doesn't know at all, and then looks at the corresponding screen....

Even though the particles had already hit that screen even before the which info could be known or measured, and it still always corresponds with the info the experimenters have when they have checked these results.

You are right, it doesn't really change through time, it comes into existance the moment we have certain info and look at it.

Until then it is suspended in a state of more than one possibility

I am talking about Delayed Choic QE exp. here just to be clear.


However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.


Here, he only sees the interference pattern if he looks at the screen AFTER he has looked at the detectors and either knows the which path info, or doesn't in the case of an interference pattern, and it always lines up with what they know, or don't know, although the pattern should have already been on the screen before it was either known or not, before it even could be known.




However, from our perspective (in 3D space), it appears that information is travelling through time. In terms of traditional Newtonian physics, this is impossible and I think that's the main point of the article. In terms of how lay-people understand the world and especially time, this is impossible. It leads me to believe that both Newtonian Physics and our understanding of the world is wrong.


Newtonian Phsyics are not wrong per se but they don't really aplly to the quantum world.

And I agree, the consensus is wrong.





As I said, there's no way to prove this one way or another, because we can't observe anything without observing it. And that's the point - there is no way to tell whether or not the machine or the scientist caused the result. We assume its the machine, because we are trained to dismiss subjective effects of the scientist. However I think this isn't right, because everything is subjective, it just can't be any other way - all data in science, all the time, somewhere along the line passed through the consciousness of a human being.



I think the results I just described actually prove it, how else can it always match what the human knows?
edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


in a manner of speaking...

depending upon ones unique situation it is possible to take another's greatest technological and scientific accomplishment, such as 'the gun', place yourself in a predicament which would mean certain death by every estimation and despite this...emerge with victory.

your science in a nutshell.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Who's science are you refering to if I may ask,and what do you mean by that exactly?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
science is science. but most people on this site and in the world in general come to conclusions that mysteriously never involve the end of the reality which they are living in. isn't that amazing?

the German scientists of the 1940s never arrived at a conclusion that predicted their defeat? nor did Japan's or Italy's.

Russia's scientists never predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse completely in 1991, Saddam Hussein never predicted that he would die from being hung from his neck on December 30, 2006 and Osama bin Laden never predicted that USA's Navy Seal's would kick his door's down on May 1, 2011 and shoot him in the head while is daughter looked on.

what I am saying is that not one person on this site has any idea when their own end will arrive.

even if someone told them...next Friday a series of events will begin that will end with your complete destruction on July 8, 2012 and everything you believe in will be overturned completely, they would reject the idea, not because they reject the science, but because they don't want to believe it, without regard to whether science could prove it or not.

does that answer your question?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


I guess, you could've said something like that in a less cryptic manner though I suppose.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


i don't have this ability, i think, to speak non-cryptically. i just assumed that this is what it meant when God decided to confound our languages in the Book of Genesis.

i will never make any sense to anyone...i'm just happy that not i'm living in a tower.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


That's ok, there is value in that too. and I did get your point, only I was confused about who it was aimed at exactly, and in what context it was meant.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


hopefully you can see that the context was framed within in the idea that I came by here to see what kind of people I was dealing with and that in this time they proved to me all of themselves and with no assistance from outside sources that if anyone were ever deserving of the the catastrophic ending that is certainly coming, it is them.

never in all of my life no matter where I have been or what I have experienced directly have I encountered a group of people than some of the people that I have met in this place could I consider more deserving of the responses which all of the story books i have ever read have suggested that people like this would receive.

how this all relates to the original topic is in the following manner:

obviously they believe that based on every news article and event that has occurred in the last 11 years that they still have a chance at survival, but events that will not occur until the next 8 days and 68 days will they truly appreciate what is about to happen in direct response to their behavior.

it'll be funny to watch for me...and they will be astounded by the indifference of the casual observer.

i hope none of this makes sense...just to illustrate that it really doesn't matter one way or the other whether anyone ever understands anything or not that is spoken or written by anyone else...and that understanding doesn't matter.

in a way...being a dimwit will save ones life.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


So what will happen in 8 days and 68 days, and why will dimwits be saved from it?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


what will happen is what has already happened.

somehow, the people you all believe in were able to hide the truth from you, but now it seems, they won't be able to hide their authentic situation.

i don't even know what will happen...but i think it may involve statements in the press (main stream and alternate media) like the following:

"i just don't know what to say."

but many of you are probably just as used to these meaningless comments as I am.

i actually look forward to being able to watch these inevitable events as much as you will.

but all of this is related to the OP...that you will all see things in the near future that will alter things that we've all seen happen in the past.

and that is what makes it all so interesting. no more endless debating about scientific theories, but actual events that support them.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


So you believe there will be disclosure on multiple fronts, soon?

I'd like to believe that, but why do you think this is imminent?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


between 5.11.2012 and 7.8.2012 you will witness a series of events that eerily reflects events that occurred between 10.30.2006 and 12.27.2006.

if you need a refresher concerning the significant events that occurred in the fall of 2006 go to Wikipedia and focus on Saddam Hussein's Trial and Mogadishu, Somalia.

I suspect we are about to see something similar but on Steroids.

the only possible explanation if you don't see it...is if something is deliberately concealing it from you by not promoting the story.

the War on Terror is real and the side I consider the bad guys is getting wiped out and most of it is not prominently reported. this may continue...that it is not reported...but they will be getting wiped out.

you should watch...it'll be hilarious.


for the Mods who decide what is on Topic and what is not on Topic...what this experiment is supposed to illustrate is that measurements and observations in the past can be altered by Quantum events in the present and future. Please be patient.


edit on 3-5-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join