Quantum Experiments, Proof that Human Consciousness influences Particles

page: 14
31
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Great thread I think we need to start looking outside of the box for answers to questions that currenlty cannot be answered. It's like having a tool box and constantly reaching in for the right tool. If the tool box is empty are you going to keep picking up the old ones that didn't work. No time to hit up the hardware stroe!




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This seems to fall under the old question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound?" Hmmm.... This really gets my head to spinning. Matter doesn't behave like it's supposed to unless we observe it. Now why? Maybe it's because that is the way the program operates within the computer. Perhaps the earlier posts about the universe as we know it being one big simulation (like the matrix) are true.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That being said if matter only behaves like believe it is supposed to (while observing it) then maybe if we suspend our belief of what we think we know, we can get it to do what we want. (levitate, morph, etc., like in the matrix). Ok now the brain is really spinning.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Ilyich
 

This is absolutely amazing imo. The fact that erasing the information after the experiment can change something which happened in the past is mind blowing. I mean how far can this concept be extended. What if the information was kept for years and then deleted? Would the experiment be able to "know" the information was going to be deleted? If so, that has some staggering implications. I need to think harder about this and get back to this thread with some of my thoughts. This is astonishing. Thanks for sharing.
edit on 25-4-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Or if you deleted the information in a year would it change your memory on what happened during the experiment?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname


So when the slits are not being observed, and one particle at a time is fired at them, in this case an elektron, you get counter intuitive results.


The counter intuitiveness of it all i think is based on the idea that a particle was a solid. When the ideas of solids are composed from the humans macroscopic interactions with large compounds of atoms. to believe a particle/ the building blocks of these atoms are the same is I think, the intuitiveness of it all and was erroneously held as science.


An interference pattern is created, when this should not be possible, since we are firing single particles, so they somehow form a wave, which is an interference pattern.

This is known as Wave/Particle duality. A commonly known term, but it is just a description of the phenomenon without a real explanation.


My chemistry teacher from last summer told us to think of electrons as dense "CLOUDS" of its specific electron energy floating around and interacting with the outskirts of an atoms nucleus.
I dont know how the idea that particles function only as a "solid" ever came about as SOLID science. that is ridonculous


So when they measure with slit the particle actually goes through, it goes through only one of the slits, and the interference pattern is no longer there.

You could say, that because of observing, the particle has to go through one of the slits, because we are looking, the wich path information is present.


This part still baffles many humans. I shall some day do experiments to make "mind affects matter" as a undeniable fact ! There are soo many anomalies that can make things in the quantum world change, for instance the light reflecting through a microscopes lens can make a difference predicting electron paths and what not.

Magnetoencephalography is this thing that can pick up on the electromagnetic fields outputted by your electron flow with in your brain. And this Magnetoencephalography dosnt even touch your head . Im pretty sure that these mere weak magnetic fields produced by electricity in our own minds can affect electron paths. I need to do more research There are still missing elements in the higgs field i think but I STILL NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


This reality is fake, humanity is a type of hive mind. It needs to program itself as a whole in its unconscious psyche on mass, it basically just needs to find a root program to accept as its main reality. Its even expressed in the ideal and believes they all go and kill each other every so often over, and it can even be observed there and all other places you would look not only in this little particle experiment.

A lot of that can be interpreted as a way of minimizing alternate or contradictory realities, it's just basically expressed in everything you see, its all just a jumble of projections a kaleidoscope of reflections reaching back and in on itself.

You create your own reality then you live it, then you are trapped by it, in time you will move on from it. Everything you see be it good or bad is what you are internally the very minute and finite aspect of your existence is you. Its all just a reflection into your soul in the end you are only experiencing yourself.

And the reasons and interpretation and way of that have been many anything from religions to sciences to things not even graspable by the human mind, but guided my the human minds.

That whole experiment is trying to gauge the change on the smallest levels they can contain and conceive of there sum, and withing there whole make up of the world around them, what there seeing is what they want to see that's all there is to it.

And you know the rest some will say this, and others will say that. Coming to terms with themselves and the world of there perspective, a sort of quantum locking you could say, lining all there ducks up and taking a snap shot of it and calling it reality, and they would be right because they observed it. And then so on ect ect come the next collapse of the world and believes and ideas and everything else they all agreed to or agreed to not agree to.

The only variable is the space between. Basically everything humanity has thought of in the past came true in one form or another, then it moved on or dissipated, and the process repeats over and over with different variables.

It is better asked can you conceive an experiment were you do not need in some way or some form to observe it....The answer off-course is that you can not....And if you can not do that, then what does that say?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatusThey are referring to erasing the information from the measuring device.. this tells me that the mere act of measuring has altered the state of the photon .. erasing that information from the measuring device allows the state to return to as it was before it was measured.. I don't see how that has anything to do with human consciousness.. it seems to have everything to do with the act of measuring..


It has everything to do with measuring. The point is that without an observer (in this case the machine measuring) it can be any one of an infinite set of possibilities. As soon as you observe it it becomes 1 possibility. Or in other words, the act of observing determines the outcome. There is no outcome until at some time in the future it is observed.

In this experiment its a machine and an electron. In everything else, its our consciousness that is the observer determining the outcome of what we are observing.

Or in simpler terms, we create our own reality


Or in other words, I agree 100% with the OP and I think we will see this understanding spread into mainstream thinking sooner rather than later.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I think another key point to make is that these results only seem weird to our current world view, which is based on Newtonian Mechanics and Materialism.

We are making asumptions about how the universe works then get surprised to see it not working in those ways.

When that happens, you are supposed to challenge the assumptions, not invent Dark Matter to make your theories work



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 



That's because the observation is done by the person/consciousness that observes the results, even if those results are observed after the experiment already happened. The machine itself doesn't "observe"... at least not yet.


You did not take into account a few things one being that the is a part of your consciousness, a sort of proxy of your consciousness and your senses one sense being those only detected with the mind. So you got to factor it in whenever you do these type of experiments. But either way the results are the same, and that is yes the machine observes...That's what it was created for, its purpose, without the complexities of the consciousness that observe it and conceived of it...It is just a piece of metal.

All of them observe and they all observe what you want them to observe, and yes observing nothing is an observation of the complexities of the conscious involved. Ever think what your dog sees when it looks at the chicken scratches that it might see when you type paragraphs on the screen...Ever wonder if it sees a form of static, ie it sees nothing, only the things it wants to see will it see...Kind of like if there was a picture of another dog or a cat, then that it would recognize as observable.

"Observable" in a lot of cases is just a word that is better replaced for the word "knowable" The details however elude them, and so what they do is try to capture a glimmer of the unknown variables.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zayonara
Agreed that there is something else at play here. Obviously, something we don't know. Imagine that for a second!

Nonetheless, at this point we have created something that switches states, based on, information/observation. Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar. Good news is that is seems predictable and repeatable.
edit on 25-4-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)


Is it confirmed that electrons switch states? I mean, do we really know what an electron is made of? What if it's not a particle at all, and just a wave compacted into a tiny ball? Like a drop of water, or ball lightning. I dunno. I love this stuff, but I can't absorb half of it.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerjIs it confirmed that electrons switch states? I mean, do we really know what an electron is made of? What if it's not a particle at all, and just a wave compacted into a tiny ball? Like a drop of water, or ball lightning. I dunno. I love this stuff, but I can't absorb half of it.


From what I understand, they thought they knew what an electron was, but these experiments proved that they didn't. The current theory is its both a particle and a wave depending on the situation.

i.e. They don't have any idea



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Originally posted by jiggerjIs it confirmed that electrons switch states? I mean, do we really know what an electron is made of? What if it's not a particle at all, and just a wave compacted into a tiny ball? Like a drop of water, or ball lightning. I dunno. I love this stuff, but I can't absorb half of it.


From what I understand, they thought they knew what an electron was, but these experiments proved that they didn't. The current theory is its both a particle and a wave depending on the situation.

i.e. They don't have any idea


When I'm outside in the dark I have a tendency to imagine all the streetlights as showerheads raining trillions of photons to the ground. Yet, the wind never affects these falling 'particles', and the particles never build up on the road or flow like water into the gutters. The particles never splash off a parked car. How can this be? The only answer I can come up with is that photons are never particles of matter. Though I do understand that the quantum world has no interest whatsoever in conforming to my logic.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Another ridiculous thought. This universe is great, but it's not perfect. Point being, if photons are sometimes particles, how come out of the trillions and trillions of photons hitting us from the sun and any light we turn on, not ONE has ever bounced off our skin or a car or the street. Or have they, but they're too tiny for us to see? I dunno.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The fact that you can see cars and other people is because photons are bouncing off of them towards your eyes.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Since to a photon, there is no time, no space or causation, relative to which the whole universe is in intimate contact, it's possible that there is only ONE photon in the universe with strange non-localized properties ie: many in the one. That's what I think, that the whole universe is observed via one very tricky photon.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The fact that you can see cars and other people is because photons are bouncing off of them towards your eyes.


How do the photons know to always find their way to my eyes?
Does this have to do with observer effect somehow?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


They bounce off in every direction so they will always hit your eye when you are looking. It's just light, this is not really on a quantum level.

If you are in a dark room, there is no light to bounce off of things, so you can't see.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
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.


Yes, it is. And I didn't help things by not conveying this idea with the proper word.
When I said

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...

I should not have used the word 'determining' because it can mean more than one way of determining...there is the determining that depends on the availability and readability of the information collected AFTER the experiment nets results...and then there is the kind of determining that is done BEFORE the experiment and is about choice and intention.

I meant the latter but the grammar seemed tricky.
I'm going to quote the same thing I did before, so I don't rely on memory or cut and paste:


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.


Okay, so I underlined the parts that are popping out at me with this.

I think that the consciousness part of this event lies not completely in the part of the 'observer' but rather is ultimately the deciding factor in what the particles do based on what the (let's just call this other participatory agent the 'chooser') chooser opts to do, as far as constraining or not constraining the particle.
Constraining one half of an entangled duo INEVITABLY controls the other partner's path.
And this is an element present in other experiments, too...those to do with non-locality especially, such as Bell's Theorem.

(continued next post)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


(continued)

Now this gets rather sticky in consideration of the fact that there is no accepted or standard definition of 'consciousness' either within science or in any field of study, etc., for that matter. That is probably the biggest obstacle here...for me, I think of consciousness as having a will or being capable of having deliberate intentions through thought that potentially can be acted upon if possible. And then there is awareness, which I tend to view as something different in that it has to do more with the act of observing or determining/processing incoming data...consciousness then might be understood as OUTPUT and awareness as INPUT...or rather, respectively, the command/ability/action thereof.

My point with defining those, just for the present discussion, is that it seems to me that these experiments and their 'counter-intuitive' results are not so much about awareness being involved (observer) but rather are caused or determined by a decision or choice somewhere along the before process which involves intention...consciousness.

Because those paragraphs clearly state that it was not possible for the researchers to directly observe and therefore had to try to gain 'indirect' information of the paths traveled. And in the consistent nature of their 'indirect' findings, what they discover is that what really matters is whether or not one partner is constrained....not whether the information is literally observed but how the other partner behaves as a result of constraining or not constraining the other half.

An interference pattern resulted when the other half of the entangled pair was constrained...even though there was no double slit device in its path.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Yes....I suspect that, myself.

And I'm laughing...but I'm serious about it!



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
In this topic several statements and provable observations have been posted.

We are talking about the Quantum World and why Quantum Particles behave differently from the Macro-Universe and if it is indeed Conciousness that influences these Particle/Wave realities.

Here is a list of things that seem to direct the concept of Quantum Reality being tied into a Multiversal System.

1. The sheer Observation of a Particle changes that particles position, reaction, status and utility.
2. Quantum Particles can be observed...a person can see reflected Light which are Photons...which are Quantum Particles that behave as both Particle and Wave.
3. Even though we do not understand Quantum Reality...we use it everyday in things like Cell Phones and the like.
4. Our Consciousness...created by our Brains Complexity...is made up of atoms which are infact made up of smaller sub-atomic Quantum Particles.
5. Logic dictates that for every possible choices outcome or outcome driven by cause and effect...there MUST BE a Universal State in which every possible outcome plays itself out.
6. #5's example is key to understanding a Multiversal System.
7. Since Quantum Particles have the ability to BLINK IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL REALITY...by Logic...there is a high probability that they are interchanging in number and existance between Divergent Universal Realities.
8. Since the existance of a Proton or Neutron also determines that the smaller Quantum Particles that make up a Proton or Neutron be in a specific Minimum to Maximum number with no seeming constraint on the numers inbetween the Minimum or Maximum and this change in number of Quantum Particles has no bearing on the Mass of a Proton or Neutron...Logic dictates that Quantum Reality is dictated by a MUCH LARGER INTERCONNECTIVE SYSTEM.
9. Since experiments have shown that Electrons as well as Photons can act and react as well as exist in more than one state or use within our own Physical Universal State...Logic dictates that there is a High Probability that Divergent Universal States exist within a Higher Order of Geometric Inter-Universal Connectivity.
10. #9...allows for the Reality of special individuals who can access this interconnectivity such as Psychics....used by Law Enforcement...Remote Veiwers...Military Use...Telepaths...Classified Use...Telekenetics...RARE...and Deja Vous...common to EVERYONE.
Split Infinity



new topics
 
31
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join