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.

 

Quantum Physics itself may be proof of a simulated universe

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal
 


As pointed out, the only conclusion of the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment can be that the observed end result materialises only after we look at the path info, even though the detection happened at a time when the path was still unknown. Yet it always corresponds to the later findings.
Really? The only conclusion? There seem to be several interpretations of the experimental results.

The first thing to notice is that two complementary interferences patterns, called "fringes" and "antifringes," are being selected. Their sum is the no-interference pattern obtained before inserting the polarizer. The polarizer simply selects one of the interference patterns out of the mush of their merged non-interference pattern. Thus instead of "erasing which-slit information," it selects one of two interference patterns out of the both-patterns mush.

philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...

Interesting that the "erased" interference can actually be recovered...even if there was nothing there to recover at all.
proceedings.aip.org...:30 PM 5/31/2013


But in any case, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the particles. It concerns entanglement and causality and the transfer of information.


edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You qouted a description of how info is "erased".

At least qoute the part that actually debunks my notion. And all that is is a report of some guy trying explain quantum weirdness that noone has explained yet.




Remarkably, it can be recovered even in situations where there was no which-path information to erase!


What does that even mean? If no which path info is present to erase, there is an interference pattern by definition.

Seems like you have been googling to come up with things that you think debunk my claims, but you actually have no clue about.

These experiments are peer reviewed and their remarkable and unexplanable results are not due to an inherent flaw in the setup of these experiments. These kind of weird results always happen and are the mystery that is QP, and that guy that wrote that report is just another guy in denial about results he is not able to compute, much like yourself..

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Tribunal
 


What does that even mean? If no which path info is present to erase, there is an interference pattern by definition.
It means that the results (which were, yes, duplicated). Don't really mean much because of their ambiguity.


Seems like you have been googling to come up with things that you think debunk my claims, but you actually have no clue about.
You don't use google? Ever?


These experiments are peer reviewed and their remarkable and unexplanable results are not due to an inherent flaw in the setup of these experiments.
I didn't say there was any flaw in the setup and neither do the sources, who know a lot more about it than I do.

The results are "unexplainable"? Didn't you just say there was only one explanation for them? Isn't that a contradiction? In any case if you review the sources you will see that the results are not at all "unexplainable". There are several explanations provided.

Now, I'm sure that the explanation you chose must be the correct one. I just don't see what it has to do with the topic.


edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 








It means that the results (which were, yes, duplicated). Don't really mean much because of their ambiguity.


It is nonsense because an interference pattern is inherent to the absence of which path info.




You don't use google? Ever?


If you use google to debunk claims you have no clue about, you might end up mistakengly qouting pieces of text of which you think they debunk said claims, when they in fact don't at all.




I didn't say there was any flaw in the setup and neither do the sources, who know a lot more about it than I do. The results are "unexplainable"? Didn't you just say there was only one explanation for them? Isn't that a contradiction? In any case if you review the sources you will see that the results are not at all "unexplainable". There are several explanations provided. Now, I'm sure that the explanation you chose must be the correct one. I just don't see what it has to do with the topic.


When I was talking about one explanation I was giving my opinion on entanglement and it is a fact that my explanation is the only one that factors in the only known mechanism that actually connects two entangled particles. It just went over your head, it is a fact nevertheless. The only other mechanisms that are proposed are speculative ones.

And are you arguing that QP weirdness is explainable within our current paradigm? It obviously isn't. Noone can explain these results.

The report you posted is prime example of the arrogance. The weirdness just gets ignored but no alternative explanation is offered.

The author claims that there is no retrocausality in these experiments yet nothing he says changes the impossible results of these experiments, results that are accepted as an existant mystery by the whole scientific community. He basically blames it on a wrong interpretation of the experiment which would mean the experiment is inherently flawed.

If there is no retrocausality, then what is the use of the experiment in its form?

There obviously is, and it has not been explained.




edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tribunal
 


It is nonsense because an interference pattern is inherent to the absence of which path info.
I understand that. But it is the "erasure" and recovery that of the information which we are talking about, isn't it? Isn't it the recovery of the interference after the erasure which demonstrates that it is not the measurement which determines the path?

It has been considered that the general mechanism responsible for the loss of the interference pattern is the uncertainty principle, as no measure can be so delicate not to disturb the system which is measuring.6 However, in this experiment, the “which-way” information of the particles is found without disturbing their wavefunction. The reason of the interference loss is the quantum information contained in the measuring apparatus, by means of the entanglement correlations between the particles and the path detectors. The experiment shows that if such quantum information is afterwards erased from the system, then the interference reappears (which would be impossible in the case of a perturbation).

strangepaths.com...
What does it mean that interference can be recovered when no such information was initially present? Or are you simply saying that the experiment in which this is done, or the interpretation of quantum theory which allows it, must be flawed?


If you use google to debunk claims you have no clue about, you might end up mistakengly qouting pieces of text of which you think they debunk said claims, when they in fact don't at all.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand. I was not attempting to "debunk" anything. I was looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon which you said has only one possible explanation.


And are you arguing that QP weirdness is explainable within our current paradigm?
Not by me, certainly. But it is interesting that the erasure (and recovery) effect was predicted before it was experimentally observed.


He basically blames it on a wrong interpretation of the experiment which would mean the experiment is inherently flawed.
Sort of, but more that the results are subject to incorrect interpretation because the experimental design allows it. It wouldn't be the first time experimental results were interpreted incorrectly. Though not exactly analagous, the "faster than light neutrinos" at CERN comes quickly to mind.



There obviously is, and it has not been explained.
In science it is not required to provide an alternate explanation to replace one which has been falsified. But I disagree that Ellerman does not provide an explaination the observed phenomenon.

By inserting or removing the second beam-splitter after the particle has traversed the Örst beam-splitter (as in [12]), the separation fallacy makes it seem that we can retro-cause the particle to go through both arms or only one arm. Any setup that would allow a detector to register both collapsed eigenstates (and thus to register the interference e§ects of the evolving superposition) would ipso facto be a setup that could be (mis)interpreted as "erasing" the "which-way information." That is why the separation fallacy is so persistent in the interpretation of which-way interferometer and other quantum separation experiments

philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...
He doesn't seem to say that retrocausality isn't there, just that this type of experiment doesn't demonstrate it.

But, the effect could indeed be a strange result of entanglement which of course, is a very strange thing in itself. Who knows, maybe Cramer will come up with something. Got anything on his experiment? Seems he ran into problems with noise, similar to what Ellerman was talking about with "mush".


I still don't see what it has to so with the Universe being a computer simulation though.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I knew this as well, Phage, but good call on the detail. I failed to make that connection and debunk the argument!



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Computer code is all about being as efficient as possible. The universe naturally settles in the most efficient way possible because everything naturally goes with the path of least resistance.

If computer code shares similarities with quantum mechanics, that doesn't make quantum mechanics computer code anymore than a painting of a tree makes all trees paintings.

DC



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I understand that. But it is the "erasure" and recovery that of the information which we are talking about, isn't it? Isn't it the recovery of the interference after the erasure which demonstrates that it is not the measurement which determines the path?


That´s the whole point. It proves that it is in fact the availability of the info to the experimenter that is the cause of the state change, and not the physical act of measuring, the interaction of the detector with a particle, which means that somehow our consciousness is involved.




What does it mean that interference can be recovered when no such information was initially present? Or are you simply saying that the experiment in which this is done, or the interpretation of quantum theory which allows it, must be flawed?


This is exactly the weird stuff that is expected in QP. If we have no way of knowing the path there always is an interference pattern. If we measure the path you get a particle pattern. If you erase the info of the measurement so that it is not available, you get an interference pattern, as if a measurement never took place.




What does it mean that interference can be recovered when no such information was initially present?


This isn´t about "recovering" and information not being present initially.

When they erase the info of detection they get an interference pattern when they check the screen afterwards. Simple as that. Nothing is literally recovered.

This is "normal" Quantum behavior and it proves that the only factor the results depend upon is wether or not we know the which path info, which can only mean that the results adapt to the experimenters consciousness.




I'm sorry, you misunderstand. I was not attempting to "debunk" anything. I was looking for alternative explanations for a phenomenon which you said has only one possible explanation.


Fair enough.




Not by me, certainly. But it is interesting that the erasure (and recovery) effect was predicted before it was experimentally observed.


No not really. It is completely expected and in line with the Quantum weirdness that has been documented for a century.

Knowing path, particle pattern, not knowing path, wave pattern.

I'll be back for a more in depth response to the rest of your post.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Phage
 


I knew this as well, Phage, but good call on the detail. I failed to make that connection and debunk the argument!


Oh shut up!



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



By inserting or removing the second beam-splitter after the particle has traversed the Örst beam-splitter (as in [12]), the separation fallacy makes it seem that we can retro-cause the particle to go through both arms or only one arm. Any setup that would allow a detector to register both collapsed eigenstates (and thus to register the interference e§ects of the evolving superposition) would ipso facto be a setup that could be (mis)interpreted as "erasing" the "which-way information." That is why the separation fallacy is so persistent in the interpretation of which-way interferometer and other quantum separation experiments


This guy has a completely wrong understanding of the processes at work. He also seems hung up on semantics, regarding "erasure". He is right, nothing get erased, the setup just makes the "which path" info indeterminable, which is an effective "erasure"of the info.

The fact remains that a result that should have registered on the detection screen as one of two possible outcomes at an earlier time when the which path info was still unknown, because the idler particles that provide the which path info, or don't, had not been detected yet, always corresponds with the results gleaned from the detectors of the idler particles, even though this detection happened after the signal photons hit the detection screen.

The results always line up. This cannot be random chance. How can the result on the detector screen always match the which path info when that info was not present at the time the signal photons hit the detector screen?

Conclusion, the result on the detector doesn't exist at all, it only materialises after we have learned the which path, or not, when we look at the detector screen.

This conclusion is inescapable, because the the result cannot always line up with what we observed all the time by random chance.

It becomes clear that reallity adapts to what we know.

As for the OP, I think this shows that reality and particles don't exist outside of our perception and only materialise when we look.

How else can the results that happened earlier, match the the future findings, always?

The only explanation can be that the result never existed before we checked the which path info and materialised after we got the which path info.


This can't be turned around however. We can't look at the detector screen first and predict the which path info, so the retrocausality can't be used for FTL communication.






edit on 1-6-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal
 




The Schrodinger cat experiment was meant to show the impossibility of Quantum Physics, in that current paradigm.



There is nothing in quantum mechanics which states that observation brings objects (quanta or otherwise) into existence.


The "double slit experiment" does exactly that!



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal
 


That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.
Fair enough.

How about this then (though I don't like repeating myself), since the OP is basing his hypothesis on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.


It's not a question of whether or not they exist, what state are they in when not observed, are they here or are they there?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tribunal


Seems like you have been googling to come up with things that you think debunk my claims, but you actually have no clue about.

These experiments are peer reviewed and their remarkable and unexplanable results are not due to an inherent flaw in the setup of these experiments. These kind of weird results always happen and are the mystery that is QP, and that guy that wrote that report is just another guy in denial about results he is not able to compute, much like yourself..

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)


I have come to the same conclusion.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal
 


What does that even mean? If no which path info is present to erase, there is an interference pattern by definition.
It means that the results (which were, yes, duplicated). Don't really mean much because of their ambiguity.


Seems like you have been googling to come up with things that you think debunk my claims, but you actually have no clue about.
You don't use google? Ever?


These experiments are peer reviewed and their remarkable and unexplanable results are not due to an inherent flaw in the setup of these experiments.
I didn't say there was any flaw in the setup and neither do the sources, who know a lot more about it than I do.

The results are "unexplainable"? Didn't you just say there was only one explanation for them? Isn't that a contradiction? In any case if you review the sources you will see that the results are not at all "unexplainable". There are several explanations provided.

Now, I'm sure that the explanation you chose must be the correct one. I just don't see what it has to do with the topic.


edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


They are called theories not explanations. We all know the particles exist, why don't you explain where they go when they are not "here'?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
the universe is a self referential simulation of itself, resulting in all kinds of weird #. most of which we don't know.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The universe is not simulated.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Initiate
The universe is not simulated.


Should we just take your word for it or you going to give us your uncles number so he can confirm it?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join