It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# WTH is quantum mechanics, anyways? (or, a series of spin matrices)

page: 1
11
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:34 AM
i have prepared a sequence of images with which i wish to illustrate some of the peculiarities of one of our favorite topics around here, quantum mechanics. it is actually pretty easy to understand if you are given a proper explanation. some people would have you believe that (feynman's quote?) "no one understands quantum physics". these people either do not understand it themselves, or secretly are ashamed of what appears to be "mystical" properties which cannot be explained by their "expertise". in particular, i would like to offer clarity on the measurement problem and observer effect, spin states, fractional spin states, coherent and collective states, linear vs. nonlinear, waveform summation, and so forth.

each image represents a measurement of the phase space at an increasing resolution. in the first image, at a resolution of 50 in 200 (or .25 per-seconds), we have a simple wavefunction and its 2D spin matrix (scroll to right for spin states). and also a plot of the sum of its energy potential across one dimension.

if we take a little closer look, we can begin to see the splitting of the spin states into fractional and integer spins. it is easy to see here what is meant by "boson" (1) and "fermion" (1/2).

at this resolution, an uneven division of 200 by 30, we can see that the measurement at this interval is having a strange effect on the symmetry.... a "dissonance". along with this dissonance comes some spins with ODD values. because these spins are odd, they are also non-abelian (abelian means "this or that"...."one or the other"). this, specifically, is what is meant by a "fractional" spin state. according to physics, these types of particles dont "officially" exist (exotic).

here, we can start to see a coherent state forming in the field and a very nice symmetry in the energy trace which is typical of a coherent system.

this level of the phase space seems to be dominated by negative charges...i wonder why? there is a definite real particle (and some minor virtual particles) starting to take shape. do you see how successive measurement on the space creates the particle?

at this level, at a measurement frequency (wavelength) of .025 per-seconds, we can see quite clearly that the function i have mapped over the space has very little dissonance (noise) in the spectrum....this is of course an idealized example.

in this last measurement, we have sampled the potential at every position in the space. you can see what is known as "braiding" of anyons (quasiparticles) as the phase propagates. it is most important to note that each of these spin states (1,1/2,1/4, etc.) represent particles (electrons, protons, etc) which will only be located at a very specific positions (energy value) over the field....their position is enforced by the state function.

but what is the very MOST important thing to get out of this presentation is that the quantum system is a nonlinear STATE function. to put it another way, if you were to take each of these colored spins one by one, row by row, you would get a linear sequence. but a quantum system is NOT LINEAR. the state of the system is defined on a level "higher than" the linear sequence. this is why quantum measurement is called an "observer". an observer is able to view the state of the system, and is necessarily OUTSIDE or ABOVE the system. observation from within the system results in entanglement (which is an intermediate of actual observation....think shrodinger's live/dead cat).

entanglement and coherence are easily understood as the uncanny effect of the concerted symmetry. one could ask the question, "how does the potential located at position A know what particle B is doing on the other side of the space?" this is a legitimate question, because the patterns that develop over a STATE function are impossible to explain with a purely linear, sequential, interpretation.

i really, really want you to understand what is meant by "state". all of those pretty little patterns of lines and circles represent the "spooky" and time-bending properties so often associated with the quantum theory. it is also why a generalized quantum theory (physicists hate the thought!) is an excellent candidate for a science of consciousness.

are those particles, individually, aware of the state function in which they are a part? no. thus, the coherent system appears to have a type of "self-awareness" which scares the hell out of physicists....but excites the rest of us!

see. that wasnt so hard, now, was it?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:04 AM

Where have you been the last 8 times I talked about any of this stuff?

That was very good, I didn't have time to read it all, I will be back in the morning to comment further after the drinks wear off, and I have had some sleep.

SnF OP, that was well done indeed.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:26 AM
Considering Bells theorem, consciousness generates non-random events. this within the context of matter created at the same time. At least theoretically, this permutation could also apply to Universes outside our own generated at the same time. In relation to the Multiverse and types in respect to that argument.

Any thoughts?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:51 AM

in general, a mind is any static potential in the time domain. thus, we can say, without relying too heavily on metaphysics, that consciousness must be mapped across a dimension which supersedes or is at least equivalent to time. just like when you look at the largest matrix in the op, you have the distinct sensation of looking "downward" upon it, so it is that consciousness looks downward.

what is interesting about this metaphor is that you can look in another direction away from the computer monitor. but consciousness seems to be constrained to looking in a single direction....

it is my personal belief that we are (like the trapped particles in the spin matrices) unwitting participants of a coherent supra-mind space, and that physical reality is, indeed, a shared hallucination.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:47 AM
Interesting post TS.
To those saying that consciousness or an observer with awareness is affecting quantum state :

Humans cannot perceive ANYTHING accurately without it emitting one of the few high energy states that interacts with our basic sense or by us bouncing "energy" of it to allow us to observe it.

Both methods are imprecise as if the particle in question is aggitated ( i.e already emitting energy we can sense) and event within an existing system with unkknown variables is already in action prior to our observation,

If we bounce energy of something to sense it we obviously affect it at a quantum level...this includes the "lightest" of particles such as photons.

Without something already being in a quantum state or by us simulating a state by bouncing energy off it how can a human sense anything???

One conclusion is a comment Amanda Gefter from the New Scientist:
"Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

Put another way, at the quantum scale neither particles nor waves exist. These are macroscopic visual metaphors that have come about based largely on the confluence of there factors: (1) our evolving in a macroscopic context, with language being neurologically rooted in sensory perception; (2) the persistence of the planetary model; and (3) the challenge of communicating quantum reality in a non-mathematical language."
edit on 15-10-2012 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:10 AM
If you were to step back, and take a look at the whole of Creation...

You would see a pyramid with the cube for a cap stone.

Now imagine living inside this structure being collapsed all around you.

Source

Vortex radio waves could boost wireless capacity “infinitely”

Source

edit on 15-10-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:02 AM

I want to say it was Carlos Casteneda that had a story about interdimensional beings living in a place that looks like the cube you show.

It may just be that it is an early morning after a tough weekend, but I am having trouble following the OP. As well, I am having trouble putting the context of my knowledge to the cube posted above. Maybe I should just take another whack at it later, after a few cups of Illy get in me.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I want to say it was Carlos Casteneda that had a story about interdimensional beings living in a place that looks like the cube you show.

It may just be that it is an early morning after a tough weekend, but I am having trouble following the OP. As well, I am having trouble putting the context of my knowledge to the cube posted above. Maybe I should just take another whack at it later, after a few cups of Illy get in me.

All I've done is offer a series of points within an infinite set (e.g. Universal - Chaos Math). When you source the page you'll read further:

"The cube is homeomorphic. It is a cube by representation alone. In actuality this is the torus..."

Hence, the graphic below. Now you'll have more of a visual concept I hope.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:54 AM

.....i dont have time this morning....sorry!

there could be two reasons for your lack of understanding. 1-you are making it harder than it is. you should start with an intuitive understanding of the visual aids. -or-2- i have glossed over a detail which you need.

both of these are very possible. so, dont hesitate to ask. i will go into as much detail as you like.

i really like that fractal cube image. the 2D matrices that i have plotted are the intersection of three mutually orthogonal (x,y,z) toric subspaces which are developed over a self-scaling fractal lattice.

or, in lay terms -> the fractal cube image (with a function mapping).

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
The OP has a very good point about conscious observation being single directional, as we can only "sense" what is in a the direction we focus. We cannot for example, experience everything omnidirectionally, as our senses themselves are broken apart, into different sets.

The closest analogue for this I can state would be, synesthesia, where one can smell sounds and hear tastes etc.

We for the most part, can only see the light in front of us, we can only hear sounds, we can only smell scents.

Yet these phenomena actually have an interaction with all other matter all around them in many forms simultaniously.

It is our limited perceptions of the universe that limit us, not the universe.

Also of worthy notice is that it does seem that the universe requires an observer, bringing new discussion to the old saying "if a tree falls in the woods and noby is around to hear it does it make a noise?".

Well at present science is not sure anymore, as it appears that the universe functions more like a video game than a static, always present, persistant "object"

To clarify, it is now thought, that just like a video game, where nothing exists that isn't being observed on screen by the gamer, the universe only maifests itself when an observer is present, and observing. As in a game, all the subsequent information is always present and available in some form, it does not manifest itself in an observable form unless observed.

The most famous experiment proving this as of yet not understod phenomena, is the double slit experiment, where light behaves much differently when no observer is observing it, than it does while being observed.

Which has led to some hypothesisingthat we are in fact existing inside some "computer program". As the similartity is obvious, this is of course not to mention the fact that just like a computer or TV moniter, all matter and space time itself even seems to be pixelated. No matter how closely one observes, well, matter, it is always pixelated, all the. Way down to quarks, and even now preons.

This is one of the least understood aspects of quantum theory, and is a source of much present specualtion, and pulling out of hair, as the answeres are not forthcoming.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by tgidkp

.....i dont have time this morning....sorry!

there could be two reasons for your lack of understanding. 1-you are making it harder than it is. you should start with an intuitive understanding of the visual aids. -or-2- i have glossed over a detail which you need.

both of these are very possible. so, dont hesitate to ask. i will go into as much detail as you like.

i really like that fractal cube image. the 2D matrices that i have plotted are the intersection of three mutually orthogonal (x,y,z) toric subspaces which are developed over a self-scaling fractal lattice.

or, in lay terms -> the fractal cube image (with a function mapping).

image. Mathematics . the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.

Also called frontier. Mathematics . the collection of all points of a given set having the property that every neighborhood of each point contains points in the set and in the complement of the set.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM

Edit: because 1. most ats members dont care about particle physics. Not really. They care about the mystery. The unaswered. A bunch of subatomic particles listed in generations with spins and charges is boring.

You started to try to explain away non-locality, and tho a novel attempt it will take alot more than some time on an internet forum to rewire someones brain.

And I think Feynman had as good an idea of particle interactions as anyone even today. Its not the direct phenomenon that violate logic. Its their implications in regard to us. Not the quantum system itself.

(also I think looking at the wave function as energy potential is misleading to beginners.)
edit on 15-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Also of worthy notice is that it does seem that the universe requires an observer, bringing new discussion to the old saying "if a tree falls in the woods and noby is around to hear it does it make a noise?".

there are usually a lot of objections to this perspective such as, "do I disappear when you are not looking at me?" obviously, the universe exists whether or not it has an observer. but the fallacy of this question is that, as i pointed out in the OP, observation from within the system results in entanglement. so a more appropriate question is: "do i entangle with you when you are looking at me?". quantum science is ultimately about the dynamic nature of information, and so when two people are observing one another they become mutual partners in a dynamic exchange of information.

Well at present science is not sure anymore, as it appears that the universe functions more like a video game than a static, always present, persistant "object"

did you read that article that was posted here last week about the breakdown of the high energy spectra at the fringes of the universe? i particularly enjoyed that. the paradox of quantum physics strikes again!

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM

are you habitually contrary? hard to please? or is it just me?

i cannot understand why you seem to think that people cannot be excited about, or interested in, or capable of, learning about this subject. i think that i have put together a compelling presentation which contains, in a nutshell, everything that is needed to understand the theory. it is a shame that you do not have anything more contructive to add.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by tgidkp

are you habitually contrary? hard to please? or is it just me?

i cannot understand why you seem to think that people cannot be excited about, or interested in, or capable of, learning about this subject. i think that i have put together a compelling presentation which contains, in a nutshell, everything that is needed to understand the theory. it is a shame that you do not have anything more contructive to add.

No, but now am feeling very contrary to you insinuations.

I would love for the discussion to be about the science. I participate in many online discussions on boring topics like fermion generations etc. I have tried here many times to take the mystery out of particle physics. I even try to avoid the word quantum, so as not to draw discussion about consciousness. To no avail.

I must admit I applaud you for trying, I was, very inconsiderately i might add, trying to show you the flaw in your approach. I was being pessimistic, so I apologize. Please note it is not soley on your topic I made these judgments, and thats generalizing and racist and all that. So I will try to avoid it in the future

Edit: and believe me. It is thoroughly impossible to understand QM completly without calculus. L^2 without calculus? haha
edit on 15-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:33 PM

this is not the first time I have authored (what i think is) an awesome science thread which is (as far as I can tell) pretty straight-forward, and it is received with general puzzlement. so, yes I understand that my approach is often flawed.

this thread is really for our mutual friend fractalman. he kept quoting me in a way showing a severe lack of understanding, and I resent being misquoted as such. but a lack of understanding of this subject plagues this site....just as much as the "quantum-meanies" also plague. I am trying to bridge a gap, because I have an appreciation of both perspectives.

have you considered ever that consciousness studies can be approached from a scientific perspective? and that a generalized quantum theory might be a good fit as a model? whether or not quantum consciousness and quantum physics are related, I cannot say. but, it is true of thinking about thinking that using a known model to bootstrap development of an unknown model can often be quite e(fective. no woo-woo required.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:50 PM

No I did not, I missed it unfortunately, I will look it up and give it a read, sounds very interesting.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by tgidkp

this is not the first time I have authored (what i think is) an awesome science thread which is (as far as I can tell) pretty straight-forward, and it is received with general puzzlement. so, yes I understand that my approach is often flawed.

this thread is really for our mutual friend fractalman. he kept quoting me in a way showing a severe lack of understanding, and I resent being misquoted as such. but a lack of understanding of this subject plagues this site....just as much as the "quantum-meanies" also plague. I am trying to bridge a gap, because I have an appreciation of both perspectives.

have you considered ever that consciousness studies can be approached from a scientific perspective? and that a generalized quantum theory might be a good fit as a model? whether or not quantum consciousness and quantum physics are related, I cannot say. but, it is true of thinking about thinking that using a known model to bootstrap development of an unknown model can often be quite e(fective. no woo-woo required.

Dude. In my circles I am the nutter. Im the liberal thinker. Every-time I quote an alternative thinker, whether it be archaeology, or physics I get mocked. The thorough trashing of non-mainstream theory is popular right now, and the innocent scientists are taking the grunt of the punishment when all of socienty is to blame. I recognize you as a brother of truth and I aplogize again for attacking your honorable cause.

. Im sick of actual crazies polluting the alternative thought process with fantasy. Once again I applaud you.

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:35 PM
Wonderful presentation. Just one question: because I'm an "idiot", could you label each specified variant? Because just from looking at your information, I don't see ANY of what you're talking about. I need visual examples of each one and how they fit together.

Because I'm not a rocket scientist.

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM

I think you glossed over it. I think for your presentation, a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics is required. I'll admit that I'm a "noob" whenit comes to this stuff - however, I am interested in understanding it, because I believe that gravity is the source of everything. Either that, or whatever generates gravity is the source of everything.

When you are describing various terms involved in your visual aids, you don't bother pointing out exactly which piece of data in those visual adis corresponds to the term. Simply put, you are naming an object and failing to point out where it is in the room. For someone who is unfamiliar with the entirety of the room (including its contents) this is incredibly confusing.

At the most, you've given me a tour guide by which to complete my understanding on my own terms. Thanks for the brochure.

top topics

11