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.

 

The Eyes Don't Have It

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


"Let's presume there is a pocket of space the size of our own universe that has been isolated from our own since... well - it's never been in contact with ours. Suppose we have a device able to peer into this universe that we can hypothetically prove the existence of (but cannot peer into). Prior to looking into this universe - it exists in a superposition. We can make a number of rudimentary estimates about it - how much total energy is in it, for example - but we don't know what's in it. It could be the spitting image of our own universe - or it could be an absolutely chaotic system filled with exotic particles that have no way of existing in our own universe.

We take a look, and find arrangements of galaxies much like our own - except in a grid-like lattice pattern that is far more ordered than our own universe.

It could have been anything up until the point at which we peered inside. We can theorize all we want to about how those galaxies came to exist in that pattern - but the simple fact is that we observed them being in that pattern. Some would argue that the universe had no form at all until we took a look at it (and, indeed, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics would say it's functionally useless to presume it did) - any pasts we infer from it are merely a sort of "back-filling" we insist upon doing. "


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,,.

also your chess scenario, and both scenarios i guess,, deny cause and effect,,.,..,

knowing the rules of chess you know that the pieces start off in a specific position,,,, if in reality they were placed in random places,, the placers were not playing the game,.,.,.,. in the same way that if an ordered universe did in reality just pop into existence with no cause,, according to our understanding of reality,,, this would be against the rules of the game,,,. for as far as we know,,, every effect is caused,,,




posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



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,,.


Bingo.

Objective reality and Quantum Mechanics do not get along very well.

www.integralscience.org...


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.


www.quantummechanicsandreality.com...


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


This is why quantum mechanics is fun as hell. Determinism, and to some degree, cause and effect - go right out the window.

Classical concepts of physics (such as determinism) simply evaporate. You can split the wave-function of a single photon so that the single photon can be demonstrated to exist in two 'boxes' - both at the same time. Depending upon how you do the experiment - you can show that the whole photon will be in one box or the other when you look for it - or you can show that the single photon passed through both boxes to strike a screen on the other end.

Obviously - this doesn't make any sense in classical physics. Yet, it is the nature of things.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


"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."

I just dont agree with this.,.,,. its " if a tree falls in a forest..."

a radioactive atom decays in a specific amount of time right?

so instead of a radioactive atom,, lets use a timer set to 5 minutes,.,.,.

we are unobserving the scene..,., but we know when the time on that timer or atom decays fully, the cat will be dead.,.,.,.,



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


"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."

and i get this.,.,., its because our human instruments of senses were created and fine tuned over time to the plane of existence,, the scale, and rate of change of macro material around us,.,.,. also since we live in a world made of quanta,,, our entire body is connected to the quanta very closely,,, and the microscopic.,,. the system of sight uses photons,,, our stomachs breakdown and extract microscopic quantities of nutrients as fuel.,,.,..,
and the reason they can say is the objective universe doesnt exist as a perfect still image,,, is because it is never still,,, since the supposed beginning of the universe all things have been fated to travel through time,,, viewing an objective still frame of 4d reality is not accurate because 4d reality is always changing,, but there is an objective reality,,, there are consistencies,, there are measurable components



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


"You can split the wave-function of a single photon so that the single photon can be demonstrated to exist in two 'boxes' - both at the same time".

how do they know they use single photons in their experiments? can you show me a photo of a single photon? this is the idea of particle-wave duality,,, and what it means to me is that a photon creates an electromagnetic field,, and it is the effects of the field which wave through the space of the experiment and cause patterns on walls.,.., like me saying there are 2 cups next to each other but a little apart,,,, and i can get 1 shot glass of water to act as a wave and exist in both cups.,.,.., except much more energy values and "wave field?" with photons....

this is just my skeptical speculation,,



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



a radioactive atom decays in a specific amount of time right?


Not exactly.

A mass of radioactive atoms decays at an -average- rate based on the density of the mass, the radioactive atom in question, and if there are any neutron absorbers in the mix.

A single atom has an indeterminate length of decay.

mathdl.maa.org...


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.


www.upscale.utoronto.ca...


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


Except it doesn't work this way.

You could perform the experiment with photons, if you wished.

Split the wave-function of a single photon between two boxes and place a detector inside of one that will register the presence of that photon. That detector is linked to a device that will kill the cat.

You have no way of knowing, until you look whether the cat is alive or dead. It has a 50% chance of being alive or dead.

More interesting - let's say you wait 10 hours before looking into the box (using any method). You will find one of two things - a cat that has been dead for 10 hours and has the appropriate signs of decay. Or a hungry cat.

The past is 'backfilled' to meet the observed current reality.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



how do they know they use single photons in their experiments? can you show me a photo of a single photon?


This is the founding principle of quantum mechanics. The photon - or a quanta of energy - was necessary to explain the observed nature of black body radiation.

Rather than summarize an introduction to quantum mechanics - I'll go ahead and link to some decent primers and others that do a good job of explaining the origin of quantum mechanics and how we can begin to know that we are utilizing single photons in experiments.

www.spaceandmotion.com...

We start with Planck and the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe."


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).


suite101.com...


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...


Planck solved the problem "out of desperation" by developing what was known as the Planck Constant.

www.bowmain.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...


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).


www.bottomlayer.com...

That's a pretty exhaustive primer that extends through several subjects of Quantum Mechanics.

Alternatively - you could always buy a number of decent books on the subject. One that I have personally read and that does a good job of explaining the history of quantum mechanics and the consequences of its various interpretations can be found here: quantumenigma.com...


and it is the effects of the field which wave through the space of the experiment and cause patterns on walls


The thing is, however, that we can record each 'particle' as it hits a sort of screen or film. To call it a physical particle is a tad misleading - the energy transferred does so in a single 'packet' absorbed by one atom or another (or, more precisely, by the electron cloud of an atom).



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


seriously many thanks for the many links!

maybe in the near future we can have a more serious discussion..



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Plants would have about as much use for eyes as we would have for roots.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
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)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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)


i said many thanks for all the links "aim" provided.,,. so i will look them over,, and maybe in the near future we can have a more accurate discussion,.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


for the example of schrodingers cat with photons in boxs or atoms decaying,.,.... what if humans were not observing but some instrumental device or computer was aware of which box the photon arrived in,,, or the moment the atom decayed,,.., in reality,.,.,.., whether we look or not,,, the photon will have done a specific act.,.,., in reality the atom will have decayed completely or not,.,



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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?

Anyone? Anyone?


those first living cells may of been exposed to various kinds of radiation when they were STAR material or before they became bio mass cells. So before single celled everything was star material CHARGED with different energies/frequencies/vibrations. Maybe that is the relating factor trees and grass minerals ect are part of EA*RTH medium as are the CREATIONS aware and non aware that exist on EA*RTH. Thing is STAR material that made animal life or FAUNA was maybe charged after EA*RTH was fully formed the FLORA was maybe part of the base STAR material that was making the planet up.

my three cents good question



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join