So, Shrodinger's Cat was actually a ball bust all along...

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Because in relation to aspects of reality we at present can only indirectly observe, are akin to a solid object, where despite distance, any effect makes a difference.

In regards that could constitute a life form (IMO).
edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Kashai:

Any thoughts?


Thanks for the links, even I'm confused now!


Some points to consider from your links...


The team placed two diamonds in front of an ultrafast laser, which zapped them with a pulse of light that lasted 100 femtoseconds (or 10-13 seconds).

Every so often, according to the classical physics that describes large objects, one of those photons should set the atoms in one of the diamonds vibrating. That vibration saps some energy from the photon. The less energetic photon would then move on to a detector, and each diamond would be left either vibrating or not vibrating.



But if the diamonds behaved as quantum mechanical objects, they would share one vibrational mode between them. It would be as if both diamonds were both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time. "Quantum mechanics says it's not either/or, it's both/and," Walmsley says. "It's that both/and we've been trying to prove."


The article makes a very poor job of articulating an explanation of what is actually occurring.

Thus, we have two 3 millimetre-sized diamonds placed a few centimetres apart from each other and they are zapped by a pulse of light from an ultrafast laser. For clarification, the pulse from the laser is composed of photons (plural) and that both diamonds are zapped by the laser at the same time.

Okay, so if both diamonds, relatively composed of an equal number of atoms, sharing the same equal strength of atomic bonding, are hit by a pulse of light, would it be any wonder that their reactive vibrations to the impact of photons would be the same?

Suppose, however, that one diamond is hit by significantly more photons than the other, which equates to one diamond receiving a larger energetic thump than the other, then in classical terms, their respective vibrations should correspond accordingly, in that the one receiving the larger thump would be vibrating more energetically than the one that received the lesser thump, and thus they would be no coherence or quantum entanglement. Important to bear in mind that both diamonds are at the same temperature prior to being hit by the laser.

I would think in this scenario, quantum entanglement or a shared coherence would be true only if the diamond that received the lesser thump still vibrated at the same rate as the one that received the larger thump? It would show that a communication (energy) other than the laser light is being exchanged between them and insuring a levelled co-existence was maintained. The question to ask then is: where is the extra energy coming from that is vibrating the diamond that received the lesser thump up to the same level as that of the diamond that received the larger thump? If coherence is true, then the answer must lay in quantum field correspondence. In other words, the associated fields of the diamonds acting quantum mechanically are some how linked?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Time is a tricky beast. Think about all that existing are subatomic particles. And these subatomic particles group up into atoms, and they make molecules etc. Charged subatomic particles accelerating and changing direction creates radiation. This radiation has the greatest velocity of any energy/material we know of and we figure it is the speed limit of energy/material. If all energy/matter/radiation was born at the same moment in the big bang, then that is the beginning of that collective (the universes) time. But it is said time is relative. I think because (of a couple reasons) subatomic particles depending on how they group up can survive as themselves for longer then others. They also travel with different angular momentum and velocity. It takes pluto more time to orbit the sun then earth, because even if they were traveling the same velocity, pluto has to travel more space, which is an unfair comparison. A better comparison would be a 100 mile long road, and 2 robotic cars. 1 car can only travel at 100 mph. The other car can only travel at 50 mph. They are covering the same distance, but because their velocities are different, they experience time differently, the 100mph car can reach the destination in less time.

So now to get with what you say about past, present and future. Its always a constant mix of all 3 from different perspectives, yet relative to the beginning of the universe, to right now, the entire energy of the universe has existed for the same amount of time. It may be in different forms, and always changing forms, but it moves through an absolute time together.

so you say the present is some kind of surface, and that surface exists in the future. Is this a way of saying, what happens now creates the future? That is quite obvious to me, there is a finite quantity of energy/matter in the universe right now, and it has no where to go, it cant escape or disappear, so that energy/matter changes, and interacts, what that energy/matter changes into is the 'future' state of the universe or energy/matter. The interactions that occur right now, and right now, and right now, will do something later, and later is the future.

Idk know what you mean by the electron in the atom, but it seems we are a bit off topic from my question regarding how entanglement may be possible.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 






edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I would say that we always exist in the present even in the context of every possible decision in every possible universe, in relation to 10 dimensions.

This in relation to the context in which, such a perspective requires time to be processed.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Your first link doesnt say anything really about entanglement and it being a real phenomenon, if anything it makes it seem like the belief that there is FTL information transfer is a misinterpretation. And the second link...idk what that has to do with anything.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Kashai
 


Your first link doesnt say anything really about entanglement and it being a real phenomenon, if anything it makes it seem like the belief that there is FTL information transfer is a misinterpretation. And the second link...idk what that has to do with anything.


That would imply that quantum entanglement cannot occur instantaneously at distances beyond a light year.

Why not?


How Do Quantum Mechanics Apply to Modern Electronics?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Quantum "spooky action at a distance" travels at least 10,000 times faster than light

Its late for me may you all have a good night.
edit on 21-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BellaSabre
 

quantum mechanics is quite real, but special relativity is also real. einstein's true problem with quantum mechanics stems from something traveling faster than light. an oversimplification of the issue, but functionally accurate.

it is my theory (and i have done some work on this, and bounced ideas off real-life collaborators) that there is a misunderstood variable. the EPR paradox was close, but they went the wrong way. they assumed that there were no missing variables, BUT they overlooked the possibility that the effects of a variable might be misunderstood.

time is a misunderstood variable, and correcting it's interpretation fixes the problems between einstein's relativity and qm.

how? good question. entanglement can be simply understood as two or more particles sharing information with each other and nothing else. the two particles are separate from the observer, they possess their own "internal clock" and act accordingly.

to grossly simplify my theory:

particle "x" becomes entangled with particle "y". their states are known to each other, and do not fluctuate relative to "x" observing "y", or "y" observing "x" (let us assume they are fermions, only two possible spins, up and down). the states can be thought of as fluctuating rapidly relative to the future observer, but what actually occurs may never be known concretely, only theorized about. their speed of fluctuation between states is at the fastest possible speed in the universe, which actually turns out to be a distance, NOT a speed. time is quantized, and the universe has a framerate. the value of the framerate is the fastest possible speed that something can travel divided by the smallest distance.

we have x#y (where # denotes entangled particles). the observer decides to ping particle "z" off particle "x".

this is where it gets interesting. as the different internal clocks are forced to reconcile because of the "new" interaction of particle "z", the base equation changes.

now, relative to the observer, x#y NEVER existed. that interaction never occurred. this instant change of the equation results in an instantaneous (almost instantaneous. i have the value for how fast it occurs) change in the particles.

the internal clocks were once separate, but sending in particle "z" collapsed the wave function between the observer and the entangled particles, forcing them to reconcile their differences in the past, creating an instant change in the present.

the result is that the speed of light is never violated, and quantum mechanical effects do occur. there is quite a bit more to this theory.
edit on 21-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster
Except that the specific quote I provided in the OP states the obvious fact that Schrodinger called the cat analogy a "ridiculous case" in his own words. Man, I provided the link and the link provides the source that was used. You're fighting reality in this situation, not me.

Well, you're the one who has failed to understand the basic premise of Schrödinger's Cat, even though it's been explained to you several times.

Here, this is from your "wikipedia" article, I underlined the important bit for you:


It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense.

The problem wasn't with the Copenhagen interpretation, it was with its application to the macro scale.


So this phrase contained within your own excerpt - "resulting in a contradiction with common sense" - doesn't strike you as stating something glaringly obvious?

Okay then. I think we've established our individual points of reference at least. Thanks for sharing your perspective.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai


Scientists have been able to entangle particles in the lab before, but only under special conditions, by isolating them and cooling them to ultra-low temperatures. "What we did was to demonstrate that you could make these wacky states in these everyday normal objects sitting in a regular laboratory under no particularly special conditions," study author Ian Walmsley says. To do this, his team used a laser to start the crystals of a millimeter-size diamond vibrating. The vibrations were reflected in the diamond’s entangled twin a few centimeters away. The researchers used ultra-fast optical technology to create and measure the entangled state before it broke up.

It was this fast detection that made the diamond entanglement experiment possible. Most physicists, Walmsley says, believe that quantum entanglement is a property present in all objects in our macro world; we just don’t see it happening. "In the everyday environment, objects are connected to other objects," he says. "They’re sitting on the floor, wafting in the wind, and those connections are ways in which information and energy can leak out of one system into another." So objects lose their entanglement quickly. By using super-speedy technology, this team caught the diamonds acting entangled before environmental interactions overcame the effect.


Source

Further

Center for Quantum Technologies

Any thoughts?

edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content


If you can engineer a radically altered reality and sufficiently isolate that system from the rest of natural reality, you can get the stuff within that radically altered reality to act in an unusual manner. But then, eventually, your radically altered reality will fall apart, and your unusual-acting stuff will stop acting unusual. Kind of like teaching a dog how to dance. Sure, you taught the dog how to dance, and it's entertaining and all, but let's not go crazy and publish a scientific paper that declares that all dogs dance and that we've been repressing the natural capacity - or requirement, perhaps - of all dogs to be dancers. It just means that you figured out how to make a dog - one dog - dance.

This is what they call "inductive reasoning", and it has only a very limited value within scientific research. The problem with QM and what's become of it, is that rampant and aggressive inductive reasoning has turned it all into the freak tent of science, allowing the mystics to move in and set up their exhibits right next to the relatively serious exhibits. Now, kids are growing up thinking that they can overcome Time and Space, and that there's something wrong with their own abilities if they can't.

This isn't about me trying to "limit" the human potential. This is about "science" carnies trying to bring back the Dark Ages after centuries of our working to climb out of them. Mysticism is about promoting ignorance. Yes, there are "more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy", but not any of it is mystical in nature. Only humans have the power to make something mystical. And only by insisting that it be intrinsically unknowable.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement: a Geometric Approach

Further



Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.


Stanford Univercity



All existential wholes that share a common reality platform are, to some degree, entangled. Entanglement is just another word for "sharing some level of internal and relative contextual commonality". All people who are alive right now on Planet Earth are "entangled" to one degree or another. Family members are more "entangled" than total strangers are. It's no more or less miraculous than that.

If you engineer the system preparations properly, you can create an isolated system that features two extremely primitive items (generally photons, since they're the easiest to create as a contextually pristine "entangled" set) that share a profound contextual association. Even then, if your system isn't isolated to the degree that the contextual relationship between the two photons can be preserved and kept as free of contextual contamination as required, your "entanglement" experiment will fail.

It's extremely difficult to stage the kind of system that can host extreme entanglement, but science is really good at problem solving. These are not simple or (by any stretch of the imagination) natural systems. They are the result of a lot of research and technical expertise, and only exist in labs. But this is what it takes to produce the kind of entangled parlor tricks that these folks produce. These events do occur, but not "in the wild". In normal reality, the contextual "bleed through" immediately makes such profound internal/relative contextual entanglement impossible.

Hell, to produce the photons involved, they have to hit a crystal with a laser and get an electron (within the atomic structure of the crystal itself) to do a two state jump, and then release two photons as it returns to its resting state (one state at a time, of course) before they can even get a likely pair to then work with. And this fact of how these photons came into existence does provide the initial pristine degree of contextual "entanglement", but it takes the severely isolated system itself to preserve that extreme degree of contextual association.

In other words, it's like a Vegas magic act. Lots of technology involved in making this magic happen.

The bitch is that most tech journalists have no idea what is involved, and when the white paper says that they used a diamond or a specific material to stimulate with a laser (to excite the electrons needed for the photon pair's production) the article is written to suggest that the researchers entangled the diamonds themselves (or whatever it was that they got the photons from). So now people think that they can entangle anything in this manner, when the truth is that they can't. Quantum computers will never happen because of the technical impossibility of isolating so many quantum pairs from each other and from everything else that exists so as to preserve their contextual purity. On a chalk board it might work, but reality isn't a chalk board. Math doesn't represent reality. Math is its own reality. A pure and pristine reality that has never actually existed. Math is science's version of Heaven, and there is no Heaven.
edit on 7/21/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Can you tell us where the mockery exactly happens? Because for a simple illustration how QM 'works', isn't Schrödinger's cat a relatively good example? I mean the idea of having the *two* cats in *two* different states at the same time is exactly what this comes down.

So..was the mockery that Einstein/Schrödinger actually rejected the idea and he brought in the cat as an example how absurd it is? (When, in reality, the example is a pretty good fit, IMO) ???


Yes, the mockery was that both men rejected Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of what QM is all about. The "cat" never actually exists in both states simultaneously. The "observer" never affects what happens to the cat. If it died, then it died before any observer verified its death. Try it sometime, and the smell alone will prove that the cat's been dead long before you opened the box. I promise you that this will be your own experience of discovering a cat that was NOT alive and dead - at the same time- or even in a state of physical limbo, while you were waiting to check in on it. If the cat died, then it'll be decaying, and stinking that box up after a while, and you'll discover that I'm right when you open that box.

And then you'll know what Schrodinger was talking about and why he used a dead cat as his example. Plenty of immediate evidence that the observer didn't cause the potential to be realized, but that the realization occurred on its own and without the observer's help.

**


So..when a photon is *either* a wave OR a particle, until I try to 'catch' the wave and then it always turns into a particle (or vice versa)....it's legitimate to apply this also on a macroscopic level. Otherwise, what sense would it make? I cannot exclude observations I make on a particle level and say this doesn't apply to macroscopic...or can I?
edit on 20-7-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)


Think of evening rush hour traffic in the middle of the winter, when all daylight is gone. If you observe it from a mile directly above it, it looks like a solid streak of either white or red (a wave, if you will), but if you zero in with a scope and pick out one car, the streak disappears and you see the one car (a particle, perhaps). If there's a crash, the crash pattern for the "wave" of traffic will be very different than the crash pattern of the single car.

A photon wave is different than a photon particle. Why is this news?

Taking a "wave" photon from the group it has traveled with for its entire existence will not eliminate the internal contextual properties that the photon has acquired over the course of its "wave" behavior existence, so why would it react differently to structured stimuli. Hence the dichotomy of the double-slit experiment. Then, when new externally imposed relative contextual "contamination" is introduced (the cameras on the slits, perhaps) is it all that odd that such relatively pristine items - the lab produced photons - might be affected? The observer always affects the thing being observed. It imposes an immediate contextual relationship (relative) on the observed item, immediately establishing that relationship as an internal contextual property that is now intrinsic to the Identity of that observed item. In other words, the observation immediately changes the observed item, and forever, I might add. When there is an extreme dearth of identifying context involved (as is always the case in research scenarios) the impact of that newly acquired context is going to be fairly obvious.

Obviously it's a lot more nuanced and complicated than I have room for here, but I hope that this helps open a new door for you if this issue has been bothering you.
edit on 7/21/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Did you watch the first video you posted? The way I interpreted it was that Richard Feynman claimed the only mystery in quantum mechanics, and all that separates it from classical, is superposition/entanglement. It then goes on to show that the concept of superposition/entanglement may not be an actual aspect of reality, but an interpretation of math which probabilistically describes reality, and then people hear about these math equations that describe reality using probabilities, and say "reality uses probabilities, a particle can be doing 2 paradoxical things at the same time, and go through 2 slits at the same time", but I will withhold all belief in the truth of this, because I side with einstein on the problem, there may be a ton of great explanations of how this occurs, and they may be all over my head, until I can see a simple explanation of how quantum entanglement may be doing its magic tricks, I will fail to believe it actually occurs, and assume it is misinterpretation of math theories used for prediction.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Once we get past actual research that conducted tests on a populations in respect to science. Science is then all about statistics and inductive reasoning. Understandably aspirin do cure headaches, solids can be tuned into gasses and the locations of any planets in our solar system can be identified for any particular time.

Quantum computers do actually exist today. Granted the largest are about 4 qubits and can tell you that 3X5 is 15
but actually the technology does exist.

To be clear presenting a research paper where mysticism actually belongs in the Dark ages would require a test of earths population. At the very least testing the indigenous that still engage in the more ancient practice. Would
be the minimum, as at the very least the origins of psi would be explored.

If anything the dark ages is implication of the validity of psi ability. As those who could not reproduce inherently such a capacity felt so threatened by the reality of the situation, they started torturing anyone suspected for any reason.

Ignorance exist only when a opinion formed cannot be tested and is then treated as an absolute.


Any thoughts?

edit on 21-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Kashai
 


Did you watch the first video you posted? The way I interpreted it was that Richard Feynman claimed the only mystery in quantum mechanics, and all that separates it from classical, is superposition/entanglement. It then goes on to show that the concept of superposition/entanglement may not be an actual aspect of reality, but an interpretation of math which probabilistically describes reality, and then people hear about these math equations that describe reality using probabilities, and say "reality uses probabilities, a particle can be doing 2 paradoxical things at the same time, and go through 2 slits at the same time", but I will withhold all belief in the truth of this, because I side with einstein on the problem, there may be a ton of great explanations of how this occurs, and they may be all over my head, until I can see a simple explanation of how quantum entanglement may be doing its magic tricks, I will fail to believe it actually occurs, and assume it is misinterpretation of math theories used for prediction.


Yes I did and effectively provided two contrasting positions..

Quantum mechanics makes apparent that nothing is inherently or fundamentally separate.

This despite the fact that the five sense's suggest otherwise there is in fact an overwhelming amount of data in support of the idea thatthis is consistent with such a conclusion.

Also we are well beyond the point of where math is the only way we have established this.

Offered by me in this thread is that today there are many, many examples. Where quantum entanglement is a part of not only every day life.

But also essentially reproducible at a scale in a lab that is observable from the human perspective.

And a very good example of that was provided in the second response in this thread.

Any thoughts?
edit on 21-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Dude are you seriously trying to use quantum mechanics to prove 'mysticism' and the other way around? Why not focus more on the ability for quantum mechanics to prove itself first. So all of our discussions, you put mysticism before the importance of science? you were trying to prove your beliefs and hopes by using science as a crutch, not even truly caring about the science, and the truth, but only as a stepping stone to your own fantastical self contentment? Its hard to explain what I mean. The way I see it is you dont even care anything about the real science, you just see a space of mystery in regards to the experiments and theories, and are attempting to squeeze your beliefs in there in hope that everyone will remain ignorant long enough to not have to question your beliefs?

First and foremost must be the science, the reality, the truth, the raw data, the exact unbiased understanding of the way physical reality operates. Understanding the way subatomic particles interact and what is possible with them, has nothing to do with psi abilities or mystiscm. It is completely irrelevant. I have no problem in you believing mystissm , or thinking you have sci abilities and doing whatever you can to improve them and master them, but that has nothing to do with understanding the fundamental problem of quantom entanglement, what it is, how it works, if it works, why it works.
edit on 21-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai


Quantum mechanics makes apparent that nothing is inherently or fundamentally separate.


Oh does it. Can you theoretically and hypothetically state how this is possible? What is the scenario of energy,matter and space that it is all existing in a dimensionless state? I dont know what you mean by this, do you mean that you and I are touching one another right now, and we are also touching everything in the universe, right now im stroking an aliens hair, all the aliens,right now im in the sun, all the suns?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Your trying to suggest psi of for that matter any other phenomenon science does not understand. Should not be investigated and determined valid or invalid because it is unscientific to treat mysticism as related to nature.

Dude what factual empirical research study in "Nature" or "Science" do you have handy that supports your position?

Any thoughts?
edit on 21-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join