It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
that super position doesnt make sense to me,.,.,.,., just because we dont yet know what state something is in,, does not mean it is not always in a specific state.,.,,. this is denying the concept of objective reality,,.
Schrödinger, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, understood just how radical this is. To dramatize it, he imagined putting a cat in a box with a radioactive atom and a detector that would trigger a bottle of poison to break when the atom decayed. Since the whole thing is unobserved in the box, the state of the atom, and consequently the state of the cat, is not determinate. Just as the photon does not take one route or the other unless it is observed, the cat is not alive or dead unless it is observed. This is so outrageous that even some quantum physicists find it hard to swallow. Yet that is exactly what quantum mechanics itself says. There is even hard evidence now that large macroscopic objects can exist in these strange non-local quantum states. Examples are superconductors, superfluids, and lasers. These are the exceptions, though. For most macroscopic objects, the quantum effects are not noticeable. They are there, to be sure, but they are not noticeable.
The reason the quantum nature of most objects is not noticeable is because of a phenomenon called decoherence. When the one wave went through the two slits, the resulting two waves had a phase relationship with each other that created the interference pattern. Such waves are called coherent. When millions and millions of particles are involved, though, there are so many of these phase relationships interfering that they appear on the macroscopic scale to average out, or decohere. This is analogous to how the curvature of the earth appears to disappear in a limited area of its surface. The decoherence effect is the reason we can usually get away with ignoring the quantum coherence effects of macroscopic objects. It is the reason classical physics works so well for ordinary objects.
It is important to remember that, like the earth appearing flat, this decoherence effect is only an appearance and is not real. The quantum coherence is really still there--it is just hidden in the microscopic details and is not noticeable on the macroscopic scale. So, in principle, macroscopic objects, just like microscopic objects, do not have objective existence in definite locations while they are not observed. Nevertheless, because of this decoherence effect, the macroscopic world appears in a manner that is consistent with objectively existing matter. So, although the objects of the world do not actually exist objectively, they appear as if they did.
There are two consequences of this observation. The first is that as long as quantum mechanics always gives the right answer, there can be no experimental evidence for a separate objective reality, for quantum mechanics has co-opted all the evidence. The only hope for those who advocate a separate, objective reality is that some experiment will show quantum mechanics to be wrong. And after all the tests quantum mechanics has been put through and passed – especially those involving Bell-like situations – that seems like a vain hope.
lso your chess scenario, and both scenarios i guess,, deny cause and effect
a radioactive atom decays in a specific amount of time right?
The probability that any given atom in the material will decay is the same as for all atoms and this probability does not change with time, i.e. the chance that an atom will decay in the next second is unaffected by the fact that it did not decay a second ago. Clearly the number of atoms decaying in one second depends on the number of atoms you start with, but the chance of any individual atom decaying in a given time period is always the same.
For radioactive substances, one crucial factor in discussing the half-life is that we were discussing a large collection of atoms. What if we only have two such Nitrogen-13 atoms? Then if we wait 10 minutes, one-half life, there is a 50% chance that one of the atoms will have decayed. So this is sort of similar to flipping two coins. Whether a particular coin comes up heads is about a 50% chance. For flipping two coins we can get both heads, one head and one tail, or both tails. Similarly for two radioactive atoms we could end up with both decaying, one decaying and the other not, or both not decaying.
If, with Einstein, we reject the idea that completely identical initial states can evolve to different outcomes, then we conclude that initially there must have been some difference, some variable, that distinguishes the two Nitrogen-13 atoms. To date all attempts to discover what that variable is have failed; thus we would say that there is some hidden variable inside the atoms. In Quantum Mechanics there are no such variables.
we are unobserving the scene..,., but we know when the time on that timer or atom decays fully, the cat will be dead
how do they know they use single photons in their experiments? can you show me a photo of a single photon?
In 1900 Max Planck made a profound discovery. He showed (from purely formal / mathematical foundations) that light must be emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts if it was to correctly describe observed phenomena (i.e. Blackbody radiation).
Unfortunately for classical laws, when a black-body gets hot enough, the amount of radiation which should theoretically be given off, according to the equipartition theorem, should begin to approach infinity.
In other words, a glowing body should in theory be emitting a tremendous amount of radiant energy. This means that every time an oven is opened, according to classical mechanics, we should be instantly vaporized and killed by the many deadly rays emanating from the black-body heating elements.
Obviously, this doesn’t happen.
Read more at Suite101: Black-Body Radiation: The Ultraviolet Catastrophe and Fall of Classical Physics | Suite101.com suite101.com...
The diagram at left shows the result of a double slit diffraction experiment. QM predicts a waveform with alternating bands of high and low intensity. Frames (a)-(d) show snapshots over time as individual particle "arrive" (transfer energy) to the screen. Initially it is difficult to see any pattern (a)-(b). As time goes on, the waveform reveals itself (d).
and it is the effects of the field which wave through the space of the experiment and cause patterns on walls
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by ImaFungi
Why do you say "in the near future"? what do you have planned?
I do see some interesting possibilities about QM and quanta, like the photon having a fundamental nature as described at the standard model level, and below that a more complex foundational nature.
edit on 30-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)edit on 30-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jiggerj
Just a quick question.
If every living thing came from the first living cell, why is it that fleshy creatures developed eyes and vegetation didn't? Surely, the option to develop eyes must be in the DNA of a tree, right?