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.

 

Quantum Experiments, Proof that Human Consciousness influences Particles

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RisenAngel77
 


Not having the knowledge only applies to this specific situation of the experiment.

I believe in the law of attraction. I believe that our specific consciousness manifests what is within the programming, expectations and perimeters of our consciousness.

So instead of saying that we should let go of knowledge, you should condition yourself in such a way that your consciousness manifests, and attracts what you like it to.

It's not exactly that simple off course, but that is were it touches the law of attraction.


edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 

Oh yes it is buddy, how can know you something has happened, if you don't check afterwards in one way or another?
As long as we don't look, or get indirect results or an effect we can observe, no one can say that something happened or not.
Sorta like,
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Sounds like a paradox!
Great post!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hypattia
 


Yes, the old saying. Its implications are so true. Thnx.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
On the wikipedia page about this experiment, it says:


Unexpectedly, the results discovered were that if anything is done to permit determination of which path the photon takes, the interference pattern disappears: there is no interference pattern. Each photon simply hits the detector by going through one of the two slits. Each slit yields a simple single pile of hits; there is no interference pattern.

It is counterintuitive that a different outcome results based on whether or not the photon is constrained to follow one or another path well after it goes through the slit but before it hits the detector.

Two inconsistent accounts of the nature of light have long contended. The discovery of light's interfering with itself seemed to prove that light could not be a particle. It seemed that it had to be a wave to explain the interference seen in the double-slit experiment (first devised by Thomas Young in his classic interference experiment of the eighteenth century).

In the early twentieth century, experiments with the photoelectric effect (the phenomenon that makes the light meters in cameras possible) gave equally strong evidence to support the idea that light is a particle phenomenon. Nothing is observable regarding it between the time a photon is emitted (which experimenters can at least locate in time by determining the time at which energy was supplied to the electron emitter) and the time it appears as the delivery of energy to some detector screen (such as a CCD or the emulsion of a film camera).

Nevertheless experimenters have tried to gain indirect information about which path a photon "really" takes when passing through the double-slit apparatus.

In the process they learned that constraining the path taken by one of a pair of entangled photons inevitably controls the path taken by the partner photon. Further, if the partner photon is sent through a double-slit device and thus interferes with itself, then very surprisingly the first photon will also behave in a way consistent with its having interfered with itself, even though there is no double-slit device in its way.


All the bold emphases are mine.

This part bears repeating:

In the process they learned that constraining the path taken by one of a pair of entangled photons inevitably controls the path taken by the partner photon.



It doesn't matter if one is able to 'observe' the effect of this at all, and in fact, it seems there is no way to 'observe' certain details, such as gaining indirect information.

The term 'observer' was given its meaning in quantum mechanics when the science was brand-new. It might be not such a desirable term, anymore, since it appears that it is more about DETERMINING the paths taken rather than OBSERVING those paths...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


This is what I've been saying too, it's not so much the knowing, but more the availability of the info.

It is a bit confusing though.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname

I see no other reason for that besides it having a direct relation with the consciousness of the experimenter.



False. Your consciousness has nothing to do with the pathing of light. Light takes a path into your eyes, not the other way around. Another experiment was done which tries to measure where a photon is at a given time that shows even if you observe the experiment the interference pattern still exists. It is the previous setups of such experiments that affect the outcome, not consciousness itself.

See this link
physicsworld.com...


An international team of researchers has, for the first time, mapped complete trajectories of single photons in Young's famous double-slit experiment. The finding takes an important first step towards measuring complementary variables of a quantum system – which until now has been considered impossible as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 





False. Your consciousness has nothing to do with the pathing of light. Light takes a path into your eyes, not the other way around.


This has absolutely nothing to do with these experiments.

Interesting article, however, I can't find anything that suggest this,




Another experiment was done which tries to measure where a photon is at a given time that shows even if you observe the experiment the interference pattern still exists.


If it's in there, please qoute that part.
edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
There have been many threads before about quantum experiments such as the Double Slit experiment and many have hinted at the role human consciousness plays in quantum physics, but I´ve never seen a thread that actually proves it based on the experiments.

I have done quite some research and I´m convinced it has been proven, but somehow noone, at least noone in the scientific community, has publicly drawn the conclusion that human consciousness directly influences the behavior of particles, based on these experiments.

At least not to my knowledge.

All they say is that the results are remarkable and counter intuitive yet noone has claimed absolute proof for the role of consciousness, not even the experimenters themselves. Again, as far as I know.



I should dig up that thread from last year on this. It had some really good points on both sides, and it wasn't as cut and dried as the YouTube video clips suggest.

One issue that no one even brought up back then (when we dragged ourselves through it for days on end) is that the Double-Slit experiment isn't conducted in a vacuum. This allows masses and masses of gaseous particles into the field of trajectory, and each one of these particles is definitely large enough to affect the flight of photons, or electrons, or whatever particles are being fired - one at a time - through that trajectory field. Definitely the entire mass of gaseous particles is enough to affect the cleanliness of the process.

For my own mind on this, the presence of all that "dirt" is enough to make this experiment nothing more than a party trick, regardless of what comes of it.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
If anyone is interested in seeing how consciousness is connected to our reality, here's a thread about Remote Viewing.

We need more participants so if you think you can give it a go, please join.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It doesn't matter. Single particles are fired, and if the debrees are interfering you would always get an interference pattern, however you only get one when the wich path info is not available.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It doesn't matter. Single particles are fired, and if the debrees are interfering you would always get an interference pattern, however you only get one when the wich path info is not available.


Really? So the electrons and protons (even smaller than electrons) are making their way through a literal minefield of full-on gaseous molecules (much larger than electrons), and because these researchers have not released any notes concerning debris (like enormous molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, and whatever else exists from instant to instant between the "gun" and the slits and then the catch plate) you honestly believe that such debris either isn't there or isn't possibly relevant to the the process that is being carried out (a process that is centered on a clean and unobstructed trajectory field, if centered on anything at all)?

This is the problem with "science" lately. Sloppy as all hell. Just plain sloppy and papers get published without anyone bothering to question the metrics of the research. "No kidding. We only got the results that we included in the paper. It was definitive. We swear."

Sure kid. Whatever you say. Here's a grant check. Next?

edit on 4/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


Have to admit this is over my head. Here is a clip explaining the erasure thingy. www.youtube.com...

If it's not too far off topic, may I ask why the slits in the first place? What would happen if the electrons were directly at the wall? If the results change without the slits, then wouldn't that hint at the slits causing the weirdness?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There are multiple variations of these experiments done over the span of hundered years, and they are all peer reviewed. If this was an issue, I'm sure someone would have destroyed every single one of them.

This is not the case.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 



This weak momentum measurement does not appreciably disturb the system, and interference is still observed.

physicsworld.com...

The only real proof that we can have some impact on the outcome of things is when people started testing random number generators with mass groups of people. If you can influence the outcome of a RNG just by thinking about it, does not matter if in the future or past, then mind over matter is real.

On second thought, mind over matter is real. You can consciously control your body which is making a leap from thought to reality.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The point is to present the particles with a "choice". The original exp. was to show the wave/particle duality of light, I think.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Too bad for you but it is not about observing wich slit the particle went through.


By combining the positions measured imprecisely at multiple points and the momentum precisely measured at the end for each photon, the researchers were able to accurately construct an entire flow pattern for the photons. "This weak momentum measurement does not appreciably disturb the system, and interference is still observed.


Imprecise measurements at multiple points and of momentum. Nothing about wich path information.

Different thing, sorry, try again.

Here is another article on it that agrees that they haven't really changed a thing.

scienceblogs.com...


They haven't done anything to prove orthodox quantum mechanics wrong, though I can predict with confidence that there will be at least one media report about this that is so badly written that it implies that they did. In reality, though, their measurements are completely in accord with ordinary quantum theory.


This guy is right, the article you posted is just an interpretation of that research by that author, who also says this,


In the double-slit experiment, a beam of light is shone onto a screen through two slits, which results in an interference pattern on the screen. The paradox is that one could not tell which slit single photons had passed through, as measuring this would directly distort the interference pattern on the screen.


which is BS. One can tell which slit a particle goes through just fine, only not without collapsing the interference pattern.

Well one can, if the info is erased like in the Quantum Eraser exp. I posted.
edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There are multiple variations of these experiments done over the span of hundered years, and they are all peer reviewed. If this was an issue, I'm sure someone would have destroyed every single one of them.

This is not the case.


Check out the Natural Philosophy Alliance for those scientists that don't agree with you. My point being that the accepted wisdom isn't universally accepted. Frankly, I remember a lot of holes being shot through this experiment and the add-on experiments that ran the whole idiotic parade off the superposition cliff eventually.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars
 



Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname

Scully and Drühl found that there is no interference pattern when which-path information is obtained, even if this information was obtained without directly observing the original photon, but that if you somehow "erase" the which-path information, an interference pattern is again observed. In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern exists even if the which-path information is erased shortly later in time than the signal photons hit the primary detector.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.
reply to post by miniatus
 


Apperently the experimenter's consciousness is clearly part of it.



Any thoughts on this?


Okay, don't bite me. If this question is ridiculous just ignore it. If the experimenter's consciousness has any effect at all, can't the experimenter WILL the photons to form a set pattern?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


By the way, it's which, not wich. Don't mean to nitpick, but it's pretty annoying to see a word being used constantly and misspelled every time.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Lol, thanks, I'm not writing in my own language here, so forgive me.




My point being that the accepted wisdom isn't universally accepted.


I know, this whole thread goes against accepted wisdom, for the most part.
edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join