The Experiment That Debunked Materialism

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

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?


I will await for replication. We have a group who clearly has an agenda, showing evidence to support that agenda. Their methodology may be sound, that doesn't mean the data is accurate.

When this is replicated and found to be factual I will put some time into it.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Sounds wonderful, but totally irrelevant given how long this particular issue has been a fact. Given how pompous your last response was, you can surely understand as to how skeptical I am that you really have anything serious to offer....

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Is the double slit experiment done in a vacuum?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Not sure who your post was replying to, me perhaps? If so, this has not been fact for a long time. This is the first time this has ever been documented, and it has not been replicated by anyone else.

ETA: It's possible that waves emitted by the brain when the brain is "focused" account for the changes, which would account for the data seen and completely negate the conclusions. Any time a group with a clear agenda comes forward with something that seems to prove that agenda it should be seen with skepticism until it's replicated and understood better.
edit on 31-12-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




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]


en.wikipedia.org...




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.


So it has been more than 200 years???

My argument is in response of OccamsRazor04 input.

Any thoughts?

PS: Happy New Year
edit on 31-12-2012 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The problem is the outcome is not random....the observer decides the response.

It has been 210 years please provide evidence to an alternative???

Any thoughts?
edit on 1-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


if not materialism... then what?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"





"If I have asked you a question, and you have attempted to answer it with a question, but I am unsure you answered it at all, shall I ask it again?"



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Here is one way of looking at it




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.


www.labspaces.net...





edit on 2-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Your reply did not address anything. 200 years ago we had the wave theory of light, what does that have to do with the universe being affected by human consciousness? I have no idea what your response was supposed to prove other than being a wall of text.

ETA: I saw your next reply. I already addressed this. The observer changes the outcome by observing, I am not sure why that is difficult to understand. The devices used to measure the response alter the response measured. It has nothing to do with the universe being aware it's being watched.

Think of it this way. I want to measure how fast the wheels on my car spin, how many rotations per minute. I attach a device that sticks out in order to measure the rotations. I start driving, the wind drag on the device is altering the rotational speed. So by attempting to observe (measure) the outcome, I have effected the outcome. It's not due to the wheel being aware it's being measured and thus going slower.
edit on 3-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



The observer changes the outcome by observing, I am not sure why that is difficult to understand.


supposing your interpretation of this experiment is correct, if we examine the syntactic construction of the quoted text, we can easily see that there is a reversal in the flow of causality, as if the "result" of the experiment reaches backward from the future, and imposes a structure upon the "cause".

your "aloof" pretense begs an explanation as to why YOU think its so EASY to understand?



.....So by attempting to observe (measure) the outcome, I have effected the outcome....


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.

when we observe this data, our own personal conscious analysis occurs in a hypothetical phase space where all discrete measurements of the tire/apparatus entanglement form a superposition in the mind of the observer. the superposed phase space is "measured", and the coherent entanglement collapses. this is what is typically referred to as a "decision".

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....


I hope you will not consider it an insult that i place you in this descriptive group.


(p.s. playing the ATS "smarter than..." game is LOADS of fun!)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

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.

It most certainly has, and I showed how. Your attempt at sounding intelligent to lend weight to your argument does not in actuality lend any weight to it. The apparatus used to measure the rotation has had an effect on the rotation. Therefore the attempt to observe has effected what was observed. The outcome would be different if no measurement were taking place.


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.

I would love to. Please show me which theory suggests the universe has a consciousness that is aware it is being watched.



....fringe people who have no grasp of real science....


I hope you will not consider it an insult that i place you in this descriptive group.


(p.s. playing the ATS "smarter than..." game is LOADS of fun!)

I do not mind at all. I would love to know what my fringe beliefs are for my own personal curiosity. While playing games may be fun to you, I would count that as a character defect, although it does explain most of your post which contains no actual information, no references, an exaggerated ego, lots of opinions, with personal attacks to top it off. Personal attacks are a beautiful thing though, as they are usually the sign the opponent has no real defense. I will await your sources of research institutes and acedmia using theories which hold true the fact that the universe has a consciousness which "understands" it is being watched.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this. Particles are really made up of quantum objects. Even the "orbits" of electrons around the nucleus are standing waves which behave according to quantum laws. Once you understand basic particle physics and quantum mechanics you will know how absurd it is to think of particles as super tiny bits of tangible dust-like things.

The end of the first video is quite interesting. The result of that experiment really shows more than anything that quantum objects really only exist when we are observing them. What we really need to keep in mind though is that some quantum objects are more quantum-charged than others. I mean in reality all objects are quantum objects because they're made up of smaller quantum objects.

However as we move up into the macro-scale world the laws of quantum mechanics play a smaller and smaller role, almost as if those objects were getting more and more "real" the larger they get. For example if you stop observing some quantum objects they will whiz around doing crazy things like behaving as full blown waves and going through two slits at the same time.

Now if you fire bullets at two slits and you don't observe which slits the bullets go through you're obviously not going to get an interference pattern. Large objects like bullets are not going to go around doing all sorts of whacked out things the moment you stop looking at them. Some objects do though apparently. And that has all sorts of mind blowing implications obviously.

So I'm not entirely sure we can actually say that nothing really exists until we observe it, since clearly if we create large enough objects out of many smaller quantum objects we can create "solid" objects, or rather the illusion of solidity from a macro perspective. Another deeper point to note when considering that experiment from the first video again, is that anything we observe must be behaving according classic laws.
edit on 3/1/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this.


[citation needed]



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this.


[citation needed]

What do you mean citation needed. Any physicist worth their weight is going to know that particles are made of quantum objects and therefore behave according to quantum laws and as we know quantum mechanics describes objects as particle-waves, and as such this totally disproves any notion that "materialism" in the strictest sense is any bit true.
edit on 3/1/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

Citation need for "Materialism was debunked decades ago. Any physicist knows this". Support your assertion with multiple scientific sources if it's such prevalent thinking amongst the scientific community.
edit on 3-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I think the problem here is the way we are using the word materialism. Sure, everything follows certain rules and laws and we can predict the outcome of events if we know all the parameters of the situation. But the rules and laws of quantum mechanics are the laws of wave functions and probability. So how can you actually predict the outcome of a quantum event like particle decay? The laws of quantum mechanics tell us that the outcome is probabilistic and not 100% deterministic. What that means is, the laws of reality are actually telling us that we can only measure things with a certain degree of probability, but never exactly. This gets into why it's literally impossible to measure both the exact velocity and position of a quantum object at the same time, as illustrated by the Uncertainty Principle. Then we also have superposition and virtual particles popping into and out of existence and all sorts of mind-boggling things.

What I'm getting at here is that reality clearly isn't designed as this materialistic dream land where everything is perfectly predictable like a clockwork machine and each cog simply turns the next cog. It's predictable but not perfectly predictable, that's why it will never be possible to predict the future lottery numbers no matter how many parameters you know. If it ever became remotely possible, which I highly doubt, they could simply use QRNG's (quantum random number generators) anyway, which they probably already do. QRNG's are the best random number generators because quantum events can be entirely unpredictable random events. Summing up, any individual qualified in particle physics and/or quantum mechanics is going to be aware that the Universe is not made up of tiny marbles. Only the most obsessive physicists who can't let go of outdated notions see the Universe as a completely material deterministic clockwork newtonian machine.
edit on 3/1/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I believe (but I may be wrong) you are mistakenly equating "determinism" with "materialism" (they are in fact separate philosophical positions). If this is the case then yes, "determinism" has been debunked by QM. Or rather, the model of QM is non-deterministic (that does not necessarily mean that the actual workings of the universe are non-deterministic as the non-determinism of QM could well be due to an incomplete understanding).
edit on 3-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
looked at the thread...
saw multiple videos with no synopsis...
not watching videos you can't even post brief comments on...
shame really, it could have been useful information, but if you can't 'waste' your time with giving us some idea what it is you want us to watch, why should I waste my time?

even the mod edits on your posts clearly state you should be adding some comments besides 'any thoughts?'





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join