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.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
What explanation do you have for this?
Perhaps you have a PDF file from a conservative scientist that offers an explanation for this. Something that changes when a person looks at it? You suggest that what I have offered is fringe and not in keeping with an understanding of science then by all means what do you have to offer??
Any thoughts?
The double-slit experiment (and its variations), conducted with individual particles, has become a classic thought experiment for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics].",[3] and he was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment.[4] Časlav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger have succinctly expressed this limitation as follows:
The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. That way, by deciding whether or not to determine the path through the two-slit experiment, he/she can decide which property can become reality. If he/she chooses not to put the detectors there, then the interference pattern will become reality; if he/she does put the detectors there, then the beam path will become reality. Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world that becomes reality. Specifically, if he/she chooses to determine the path, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over which of the two paths, the left one or the right one, nature will tell him/her is the one in which the particle is found. Likewise, if he/she chooses to observe the interference pattern, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over where in the observation plane he/she will observe a specific particle. Both outcomes are completely random.[5]
Young's Double-Slit Experiment
The first serious challenge to the particle theory of light was made by the English scientist Thomas Young in 1803. Young possessed one of the most brilliant minds in the history of science. A physician by training, he was the first to describe how the lens of the human eye changes shape in order to focus on objects at differing distances. He also studied Physics, and, amongst other things, definitely established the wave theory of light, as described below. Finally, he also studied Egyptology, and helped decipher the Rosetta Stone.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Using his newly acquired information and understanding, he was able to come up with an incredible amount of new correlations that, as he puts it, "solve a huge list of current problems in physics". If proven correct, his findings would not only have practical, but also deeply philosophical implications.
The findings and correlations presented are just now hitting the world wide web, along with the documentary, and have not yet been peer reviewed. I am very much looking forward to seeing what experts in the fields have to say about this interesting new stuff.
The observer changes the outcome by observing, I am not sure why that is difficult to understand.
.....So by attempting to observe (measure) the outcome, I have effected the outcome....
....fringe people who have no grasp of real science....
Originally posted by tgidkp
in your proposed experiment, your observation of the resulting data has not affected the outcome. the uncertainty here is between the tire and your measuring apparatus, meaning that what you've given is better understood as an entanglement of these two objects.
you might be interested in reading up on some of the generalized quantum theories that are being applied by legitimate academic institutions in the fields of biology and cybernetics.
....fringe people who have no grasp of real science....
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this.
[citation needed]