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

reply to post by AfterInfinity


you're right. I sorta knew I was doing that. but i also didnt want to drown anyone in terminology or obscure the imagery.. I was kinda hoping the visual aids alone would be sufficient. I will prepare a more explicit example.

so, you didn't see ANY of what I was talking about? the actual spin values are cut off, you have to scroll to see them. anything in particular you want pointed out?

In 1997 University of Geneva physicist Nicolas Gisin sent two entangled photons zooming along optical fibers until they were seven miles apart. One photon then hit a two-way mirror where it had a choice: either bounce off or go through. Detectors recorded what it randomly did. But whatever action it took, its entangled twin always performed the complementary action. The communication between the two happened at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. It seems that quantum news travels instantaneously, limited by no external constraints—not even the speed of light. Since then, other researchers have duplicated and refined Gisin’s work. Today no one questions the immediate nature of this connectedness between bits of light or matter, or even entire clusters of atoms.

Before these experiments most physicists believed in an objective, independent universe. They still clung to the assumption that physical states exist in some absolute sense before they are measured.

All of this is now gone for keeps.

The Biocentric Universe

The experiment shows that in quantum mechanics at least, some things transcend space-time, says Terence Rudolph, a theorist at Imperial College London.

Further

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

They still clung to the assumption that physical states exist in some absolute sense before they are measured.

Explain this little bit to me. "Exist in some absolute sense before they are measured". As in, they don't need to be observed in order to exist?

reply to post by tgidkp

but i also didnt want to drown anyone in terminology or obscure the imagery..

Either you're explaining something that is new or reviewing something we're already schooled in. I think it's safe to assume that you'll want to start from the ground up to prevent any misunderstanding - although misunderstanding and accuracy seems to be rather interchangeable on this site.

I was kinda hoping the visual aids alone would be sufficient. I will prepare a more explicit example.

"Kinda hoping visual aids alone would be sufficient"? It's quantum physics, dude. Let's be real here.

so, you didn't see ANY of what I was talking about? the actual spin values are cut off, you have to scroll to see them. anything in particular you want pointed out?

Haha, oh boy. Where to start? You could provide an index of definitions for every term that isn't in the everyday American vocabulary, as well as a visual example of that particular term and an example of how it fits into the overall mess. That way, when I look at the visual aids you've already provided, and I can compare them and say, "Oh, look, there's that constellation because it's by this and that and it looks like this squiggly thing. Okay, I can see it now. That's cool!"

Get my point? And thanks for any future revisions based on my suggestions. I'm really trying to understand this stuff - like I said, I'm working on a fusion of harmonics and weak field theory, by which I can demonstrate exactly (or approximately ) how subatomic physics displays intelligence that can be defined as what we would call a "divine force". And I'm hoping your "crash course" can help me with that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity



Exactly but IMO the key word is "absolutes", even in respect to this conclusion.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


that sounds like a lot of work! it was never my intention to give a course...only a context. perhaps I have done more harm than good.

I will point out the first misunderstanding that must be corrected: you cannot take this thing apart. that must sound strange because it appears to be made up of tiny little parts! but this is the antithesis of reductionism. because the system is so deeply connected, it can only be understood as a whole. really, that is the crux of the measurement problem and the underlying uncertainty relation.

the most important moment in this presentation is at the "dissonant" sampling frequency. while it is true that the state function is invariant (will always produce the same energy distribution given the same conditions), the wavefunction is sensitive to the express conditions of the observation at hand. in other words: the observer causes disruption of the symmetry by observing dissonance.

the dissonance and asymmetry are not inherent in the wavefunction. the observer did that.


at this link you will find the "easiest" guide to the math that I have seen. while reading it, continue to reference these images I have provided.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by tgidkp


You are bringing up Quantum Computers...I have an internal link for you...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

that sounds like a lot of work! it was never my intention to give a course...only a context. perhaps I have done more harm than good.

I will point out the first misunderstanding that must be corrected: you cannot take this thing apart. that must sound strange because it appears to be made up of tiny little parts! but this is the antithesis of reductionism. because the system is so deeply connected, it can only be understood as a whole. really, that is the crux of the measurement problem and the underlying uncertainty relation.

the most important moment in this presentation is at the "dissonant" sampling frequency. while it is true that the state function is invariant (will always produce the same energy distribution given the same conditions), the wavefunction is sensitive to the express conditions of the observation at hand. in other words: the observer causes disruption of the symmetry by observing dissonance.

the dissonance and asymmetry are not inherent in the wavefunction. the observer did that.


at this link you will find the "easiest" guide to the math that I have seen. while reading it, continue to reference these images I have provided.

arxiv.org...

edit on 17-10-2012 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)

I personally agree that most laymen explanations focus too much on they mysterious non-local etc properties of quantum theory, and not enough on the particle physics. The problem is inherently the same as with todays media. People don't wanna see moderate or objective views. As im sure your aware, the majority of 'casual' science buffs are interested in the implications of quantum phenomena on human logic. What they are less motivated to do is take the brutal, long, but necessary journey thru the mathematics needed to grasp key concepts. People dramatically understate the importance of mathematical proofs. Especially when makeing ideolocial claims for science. Such as different creationists, pseudoscience supporters, and in my opinion, most main stream ufologists, and whatever the like would be called in archeology.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

that sounds like a lot of work! it was never my intention to give a course...only a context. perhaps I have done more harm than good.

I will point out the first misunderstanding that must be corrected: you cannot take this thing apart. that must sound strange because it appears to be made up of tiny little parts! but this is the antithesis of reductionism. because the system is so deeply connected, it can only be understood as a whole. really, that is the crux of the measurement problem and the underlying uncertainty relation.

the most important moment in this presentation is at the "dissonant" sampling frequency. while it is true that the state function is invariant (will always produce the same energy distribution given the same conditions), the wavefunction is sensitive to the express conditions of the observation at hand. in other words: the observer causes disruption of the symmetry by observing dissonance.

the dissonance and asymmetry are not inherent in the wavefunction. the observer did that.


at this link you will find the "easiest" guide to the math that I have seen. while reading it, continue to reference these images I have provided.

arxiv.org...

edit on 17-10-2012 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)

I personally agree that most laymen explanations focus too much on they mysterious non-local etc properties of quantum theory, and not enough on the particle physics. The problem is inherently the same as with todays media. People don't wanna see moderate or objective views. As im sure your aware, the majority of 'casual' science buffs are interested in the implications of quantum phenomena on human logic. What they are less motivated to do is take the brutal, long, but necessary journey thru the mathematics needed to grasp key concepts.]People dramatically understate the importance of mathematical proofs Especially when makeing ideolocial claims for science. Such as different creationists, pseudoscience supporters, and in my opinion, most main stream ufologists, and whatever the like would be called in archeology.

Nothing in relation to math has been proven, science is about statistics...what evidence can you provide otherwise?

reply to post by Kashai


In the exact same sentence claiming math to be irrelevant, you claim science to be based on a mathematical process.

Are you kidding me? This thread is confusing enough without people who post before reading what they're posting.

Yup science or math can't prove anything. 1+1 does not always equal 2.

reply to post by ubeenhad

Yup science or math can't prove anything. 1+1 does not always equal 2.

1+1 = 3 if you don't use protection.

And that's still according to the laws of nature!!

reply to post by tgidkp


Who said anything about taking it apart? I would study it in layers. Layer one, piece a interacts with piece b while piece c plays by itself over here. Layer two, piece a2 interacts with piece d while piece c2 fights piece b2 right next to them. So on and so forth. Then you add the layers together and watch them dance.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Kashai

 

In the exact same sentence claiming math to be irrelevant, you claim science to be based on a mathematical process.

Are you kidding me? This thread is confusing enough without people who post before reading what they're posting.

It is based upon math but math is an abstract concept. Science and/or mathematics is not irrelevant, it
simply cannot disprove consciousness created reality. Think of it this way. can it be proven that asprin
treats headaches? In the sense of humans on Earth basically everyone on the planet has access
to aspirin and it does treat headaches.

All the humans on Earth are acknowledged as a population., so in order to prove anything one would
need to test a population. For example in order to prove gravitational theories are correct one would
have to test gravity, through out all reality.

Alternatively, in order to prove that psi ability is possible, or impossible, one would have to test every person on the planet.

Just like in the case of aspirin.

1+1=5 in the case of triplets.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Actually, yeah. The standard testing procedure is to categorize humans according to medical conditions or biological factors known or suspected to have certain pull or push in the experiments, test a certain number of them, and project the results. All of which is done using math.

That's how surveys happen.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Kashai

 

Actually, yeah. The standard testing procedure is to categorize humans according to medical conditions or biological factors known or suspected to have certain pull or push in the experiments, test a certain number of them, and project the results. All of which is done using math.

That's how surveys happen.

edit on 24-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then there are those who fall outside the statistical analasis...

www.guardian.co.uk...

A mean is a generalization and in this case, in relation to genetics???

Any thoughts?

reply to post by ubeenhad


In the case of Mitosis 1=2

Any thoughts?

Good place to start learning about quantum mechanics without needing any math is just give your kids some cut up polarized plastic strips to play with.

www.polarizingsheet.com...

It will get them past the part where they get hung up on light being blocked "absolutely" like a photon hitting a wall.
Twist two sheets so that the polarization crosses and they go dark.
You add a third strip polarized at a different angle after the block and the light comes back.
Spooky if you don't understand the wave nature of light.

They gave these out to the elementary school kids as a Mary Poppins accessory back in the 60's. Don't hear much about what the kids are getting these days to demonstrate quantum effects.

Some kids pick this stuff up pretty quick so they will start seeing the possibilities as demonstrated by simple polarization. Then the thread doesn't look too complicated maybe not even beyond k-12.

reply to post by tgidkp


I realise I have made some mistakes and I am sorry for misquoting.

I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of pushing pseudoscience.

I have many radical beliefs but I am only trying to prove those that I can logically, scientifically and with maths. Until they can be these other issues are mostly matters of intuition.

We are bridging the gap.

Until I understand the whole topic more (we only discovered it was a new theory a few weeks ago) I am only moving forward with trust on your and arbitreagurs information that.

a) The maths is possible for the curving vector theory.

b) I might be correct about the religous nature of the quantum belief structure regarding the aware observer and it's possible relation to my theory.

Physicsforum and the rest of the world not knowing what happens or ever even thinking what might happen is a boost to.

Thank you for the help, I appreciate it a lot.

Excellent thread

reply to post by tgidkp

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.

Would a quantum view be able to incorporate the idea of a dimensionally superior awareness consciously dreaming life or "reality". Our own higher selves consciously dreaming this life in a form of lucid dream?