Infinitely simple

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MightyPenfriend

 

can you simply tell me what you mean and think the implications of the results are?

quantum mechanics is the mechanics of atoms right?

so your saying when we zoom in to view quantum particles,, by looking at the particles we change it in some fundamental way? we move it by looking at it? we change its charge or spin by looking at it? we stop it from moving when we look at it?

We materialise the reality that fits what we think and know out of a wave of potential.

Again, the first thread I linked explains the basic principle, and this is common knowledge, scientists accept this fact.

If you are really interested then study the information I gave you.

I'm not interested in repeating those threads.

And quantum is the stude of sub-atomic particles. Please read up, it's a completely different world that lies at the basis of our reality.

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend

It is not just an interpretation, it is a undeniable conclusion, there is no other implication. The part about our consciousness affecting the results in these experiments, that is.

Show me where it is undeniable proof if you don't mind. No youtube vids. Here's a great place to look:
arxiv

Like I said, we are compartmentalised units, we have to be in order to have this human experience. but the connection is there.

What do you think the psychic stuff is all about? Or don't you believe in that?

Could you provide me an empirical example?

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"We materialise the reality that fits what we think and know out of a wave of potential."

i dont know what that means,, can you explain a little simpler and better,, or just more precise with an example,,

"we materialize the reality",, this is a very small sample specific quantum reality we are experimenting with right?

"that fits what we think and know out of a wave potential" ,.,., so a subatomic particle has a wave potential,,,, and what we think and know about the wave potential,,, the wave potential does?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Please forget about the "wave of potential", it's confusing here, I should not have used it.

Superposition,

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations

en.wikipedia.org...

Now let me first ask you, you know this is about Double Slit experiments and variations of them right? They present the particle with two possible paths it can take, there are two slits. At the slits are detectors. If they get the information from the detectors about which slit it took, it turns out it only took one path, because we know which slit it was.

If they can't know which slit it went through, the single particle goes through both slits.

"we materialize the reality",, this is a very small sample specific quantum reality we are experimenting with right?

Yes, but it is at that moment the focus of that particular experimenter's reality.

This is what our whole reality is based on. It is built up out of sub-atomic particles.

It doesn't mean we can directly control reality though.

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations"

to me this is equivalent to saying,,, there is one white horse out of 10 horses on a carousel
when viewed the white horse can be at any position can be at any position on the carousel,,,
but when we take a picture of the carousel and view the photographic measurement, we are surprised to find that the white horse is only in one specific spot,,.,.

if you take into consideration the speeds at which the electron travels,,, in my analogy it would be equivelnt to taking a time lapse film of the carousel..,

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"They present the particle with two possible paths it can take, there are two slits."

got it

"At the slits are detectors."

got it

"If they get the information from the detectors about which slit it took, it turns out it only took one path, because we know which slit it was."

okkkkk

"If they can't know which slit it went through, the single particle goes through both slits."

if they cant know which slit it went through as in the detectors werent working that time?

if a particle passes through one slit, the other,, or both,,, any time... the detectors should work and indicate which slit they passed through,,

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"Yes, but it is at that moment the focus of that particular experimenter's reality."

so this is all about trying to prove subjectivity as valid objective truth or something?

like if i am haunted by unicorns,, fairies,, and believe that everything around me is only shades of purple,, and i believe all people are a figment of my imagination,,, this is true because it is the focus of my particular reality?

reply to post by ImaFungi

like if i am haunted by unicorns,, fairies,, and believe that everything around me is only shades of purple,, and i believe all people are a figment of my imagination,,, this is true because it is the focus of my particular reality?

I merely used the word focus to say that that particular quantum process was an intricate part of his realiy, it was what he was observing at the time. You suggested earlier that it was merely a particular sample piece of reality.

I even said this,

It doesn't mean we can directly control reality though.

If you are going to get smart with me then I'm not interested either. It has nothing to do with fairies, and unicorns, if you can't even grasp or accept, at least the scientific consensus on this then it's not worth the discussion.

if they cant know which slit it went through as in the detectors werent working that time?

Yes, or if they erase the info of the detection, so that they can't know. It's all about the availibility of info. If the info is not available the single particle takes all paths. This is proven because they check the screen it eventually collides with, later on. It then shows an interference pattern on the screen, which is only possible if it took both ways.

if a particle passes through one slit, the other,, or both,,, any time... the detectors should work and indicate which slit they passed through,,

They should? No. That is not how it works. They either learn the Which path info, or don't, and that is the deciding factor.

Consciousness,

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Could you provide me an empirical example?

I clearly made the distinction between what was my own view, and the proof I had about how consciousness affects particles in the experiments I posted.

Show me where it is undeniable proof if you don't mind. No youtube vids. Here's a great place to look:

I already did right here. It was done in those threads. The only YT vid was in that thread and it was to explain the basics. It seems you are not even at that level yet, otherwise you would be asking different questions right now.

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


" It seems you are not even at that level yet, otherwise you would be asking different questions right now. "

pretend we are at that level..,.,., can you pose some questions we might be asking? to see what some implications of these discoveries be and areas that we may want to understand more about...

reply to post by ImaFungi


Or read the first thread I linked and watch the "stupid YT vid" first and then come back.

If you were at that level, and still skeptical, you would be saying; "but the collapse of the interference pattern is caused by the detector itself" and then at that point I would completely debunk you.

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

like if i am haunted by unicorns,, fairies,, and believe that everything around me is only shades of purple,, and i believe all people are a figment of my imagination,,, this is true because it is the focus of my particular reality?

I merely used the word focus to say that that particular quantum process was an intricate part of his realiy, it was what he was observing at the time. You suggested earlier that it was merely a particular sample piece of reality.

I even said this,

It doesn't mean we can directly control reality though.

If you are going to get smart with me then I'm not interested either. It has nothing to do with fairies, and unicorns, if you can't even grasp or accept, at least the scientific consensus on this then it's not worth the discussion.

edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)

I have been unable to find a scientific consensus leading to your conclusions sir. Please enlighten me if you get a moment. I have read Stephen Hawking's account of the experiments and he doesn't even mention the possibility.

It seems more likely that the act of measuring, not the fact that we are observing, would affect the results of the experiment at hand. If I stuck a thermometer into a cup of coffee, is it my consciousness or the fact that I stuck a thermometer into the coffee, that affected the coffee?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

It seems more likely that the act of measuring, not the fact that we are observing, would affect the results of the experiment at hand. If I stuck a thermometer into a cup of coffee, is it my consciousness or the fact that I stuck a thermometer into the coffee, that affected the coffee?

Lol, what did I just say?

If you were at that level, and still skeptical, you would be saying; "but the collapse of the interference pattern is caused by the detector itself" and then at that point I would completely debunk you.

Sigh, so predictable this. You want me to go further?

Btw, Stephen Hawking is always the guy refered to by those that are not into the subject matter, lol.

Youtube vids it is.



This one pertains to the Dr. Quantum video. Likely the place where everyone gets this idea.

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

It seems more likely that the act of measuring, not the fact that we are observing, would affect the results of the experiment at hand. If I stuck a thermometer into a cup of coffee, is it my consciousness or the fact that I stuck a thermometer into the coffee, that affected the coffee?

If you were at that level, and still skeptical, you would be saying; "but the collapse of the interference pattern is caused by the detector itself" and then at that point I would completely debunk you.

Sigh, so predictable this. You want me to go further?

Btw, Stephen Hawking is always the guy refered to by those that are not into the subject matter, lol.

edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)

So you admit it is the act of measuring and not your consciousness?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


As said, that vid was to show the basics. As usual the discussion is shifted to What the Bleep and not the peer reviewed experiments and links I posted.

Fine guys. As you wish. I am done with this.

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

As said, that vid was to show the basics. As usual the discussion is shifted to What the Bleep and not the peer reviewed experiments and links I posted.

Fine guys. As you wish. I am done with this.

Then you have nothing to show and no argument. Every experiment you linked to shows zero of your implications. You are parroting what Deepak Chopra and Penrose insist upon, nothing more. Most New Agers rely on psuedo-scientists such as these.

ETA: lol

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

So you admit it is the act of measuring and not your consciousness?

I don't see how anyone with reading comprehension skils would get that out of it.

I said that I would debunk you at this point, didn't I?

It is not the measurement itself. The eraser experiments prove that it can't be, because if they erase the info after the detection, they still get the same result as if they hadnt used a detector at all.

The only thing that matters is if the human observer has access to the info or not.

And that's consciousness period. I said I would debunk you.

Youtube vids it is.

Not hypocritical at all.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Then you have nothing to show and no argument. Every experiment you linked to shows zero of your implications. You are parroting what Deepak Chopra and Penrose insist upon, nothing more. Most New Agers rely on psuedo-scientists such as these.

I can only laugh at the deluded souls that think they can play along at this level for an afternoon and "debunk" it.

I'm merely saying what most scientists are afraid to say, or are too stuck in their paradigm. It's the only possible conclusion.

Like I said, I just debunked you.

Btw, read those threads and look at all the qoutes from those experiments I posted that can mean only one thing.

It seems more likely that the act of measuring, not the fact that we are observing, would affect the results of the experiment at hand. If I stuck a thermometer into a cup of coffee, is it my consciousness or the fact that I stuck a thermometer into the coffee, that affected the coffee?

This is a really dumb thing too say min the first place, because that would mean that Quantum Physics would not be a mystery at all, and we wouldn't be talking here. I think this is hilarious. I even said this on the first page.

"Random internet guy solves decades of Quantum mystery: It was the detector!"

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Then you have nothing to show and no argument. Every experiment you linked to shows zero of your implications. You are parroting what Deepak Chopra and Penrose insist upon, nothing more. Most New Agers rely on psuedo-scientists such as these.

I can only laugh at the deluded souls that think they can play along at this level for an afternoon and "debunk" it.

I'm merely saying what most scientists are afraid to say, or are too stuck in their paradigm. It's the only possible conclusion.

Like I said, I just debunked you.

Btw, read those threads and look at all the qoutes from those experiments I posted that can mean only one thing.

edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)

You didn't debunk anything. You are unable to step outside your new age beliefs and look at the evidence, just like everyone in those threads have done, despite the evidence put right in front of their faces. They can only scoff and call the skeptics deluded or that they operate on a lower level without a shred of evidence. Sorry, we are on the same level. And no one's consciousness has affected anything.

This discussion has become a matter of faith, not science. Not necessarily my area of expertise. Please, no hard feelings.

This is a really dumb thing too say min the first place, because that would mean that Quantum Physics would not be a mystery at all, and we wouldn't be talking here. I think this is hilarious. I even said this on the first page.

"Random internet guy solves decades of Quantum mystery: It was the detector!"

Says the guy who cites ATS and Dr. Quantum

I provided a link where all the credited quantum research papers go. Please take a look.