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.
I usually get more technical on Physics Forums and Physics Stack Exchange but we can go there if you like.
What exactly do you mean by wave function breakdown?? What in the world is that?
I'm sorry, I seem to have strayed onto the 'Look at me I'm smart' section...I don't know what happened, my apologies.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: neoholographic
Also, when it comes to Theoretical Physics we can get technical. I think I asked you a question in another thread you never answered.
What is the difference between conformal field theories and quantum field theories that make it symmetric and mathematically give rise to a thermodynamic critical point and how is this derived? How does this relate to this thread in light of recent discoveries about the entropy of entanglement and the equivalence between these energy densities and gravitational theories?
As I said in that other thread, O Theoretical Physicist, I will answer the question as soon as it makes sense. Right now, it is gibberish. Make what symmetric? Your pronoun 'it' lacks a subject.
Tell me what 'it' is supposed to refer to, and if the answer makes sense, I will attempt a reply to your question. Until then, it's just some gibberish you just cut and pasted into the thread without even understanding what it means.
How do you come up with the 10/500 false vacua? Is that the number and there's hundred of cycles in the homology for each topology so how are the the differences between the cosmological constant derived and what are some of the specific negative values and how does that relate to this thread?
This is not relevant either to this thread or another. It is obviously cut and pasted from some physics forum, and you clearly don't understand it either.
But as it happens, this one's pretty easy. So I have already posted the answer as a private message to WASTYT. I will ask him or her to post it on this thread as soon as you have satisfied me that you correctly understand the question itself. Here's a clue: that isn't 10/500 (which, as everyone except an absolute scientific ignoramus knows, is just the fraction 1/50, or 2%), but 10^500, that is, ten to the power five hundred. Surprising that I have to explain Grade Four arithmetic to a 'theoretical physicist'.
And — just to make myself quite clear — if elysiumfire's post is gobbledygook, how come I understand it, and others do too? It only looks like gobbledygook to someone who — ahem — doesn't understand the physics.
Even the most lowly physicist would fully comprehend the analogy I use to describe how the same mechanism is at work during the double slit experiment and that of the mechanism of sight.
Furthermore, the same lowly physicist would equally and instantly recognise the term 'wave function breakdown'.
In other words you don't know so you send a private message or claim you send a private message because you don't want to say the wrong thing.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
One of the most curious and counter-intuitive understandings regarding quanta is that they exhibit a wave/particle duality at the same time. Quanta seem to exist in two distinct separate expressions of reality simultaneously, but no one has observed this yet. Whenever an observation to determine this is carried out a quantum always presents itself to the observer either as a particle or as a waveform, never both at the same time.
Many clever measurement experiments have been set up and made to try to observe this seemingly dual nature in the same instance of measurement, but due to space-time differentiation, the observations cannot reconcile into a singular observation. Even when we set up an experiment that is able to take two measurements at ‘A’ and at ‘B’ simultaneously, where at measurement ‘A’ we observe a quanta's particle expression, and at ‘B’ we observe a quanta's wave form expression, we are still making two distinct and disparate measurements that cannot resolve into a single observable of wave/particle duality.
We can of course, abstract the seeming duality of a quantum in mathematical formulation as a wave function. However, this has led to an interpretation that the very act of observation/measurement collapses the superpositional state of the quanta into either a particle expression, or a wave form expression, due to observation/measurement being thought of as a form of interaction that decoheres (collapses) the wave function of the quantum?
It seems we cannot look at quanta neutrally in such a way that we are able to view them in their dual aspect during the same instance of observation. Our observation seemingly ‘interferes’ with the quantum’s expression, and no matter how many different and ingenious experiments we are able to idealise and perform, observation/measurement interference will always…well, interfere. This has further led to thinking that our consciousness plays some interactive part in collapsing a quantum’s wave function, and that our consciousness is what creates our reality. This belief raises an impossible scenario.
Thomas Young (1773-1829) – an ancestral compatriot – established the wave theory of light against Newton’s theory of light as a particle. He established the idea of ‘interference’ firstly in water waves, and then in light. Through his Double-Slit experiment, he was able to show that light moved like waves on a water’s surface. Our eyes perform the same experiment every second throughout our wakeful hours.
Our eyes act like the slits in Young’s experiment, they are the openings through which the wave form of light decoheres into particle expression, and then hit the rods and cones in our retinas to cause a firing of a signal along the optic nerve to the brain. This occurs prior to our conscious experience of light. Only when the signal from the optic nerve is transposed and processed in the brain does a conscious experience of light arise. This natural and inbuilt latency negates the idea and belief that consciousness itself plays any part in wave function breakdown, or that consciousness creates our reality. Consciousness is a phenomenon after the event that raises it. It is not prior nor simultaneous to the event that brings it into being.
Observer-created reality is a myth.
You have proved it with a post on ats. Better tell those whacky science guys doing silly experiments. What a time waster.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
You have proved it with a post on ats. Better tell those whacky science guys doing silly experiments. What a time waster.
None of the wacky science guys doing silly experiments believe for a moment that reality is created by conscious observers.
double slit experiment certainly implies the possibility
originally posted by: marioonthefly
Without conciousness...there are no machines... and there are no measurements of any kind.
Machine is still a "conciousness"...sort off like...an extension
No. That is like saying "Lighters can start fires. Lighters are made by conscious humans, Therefore, fire requires consciousness".
Correct, lighters aren't the only means of starting fires. That's my point.
Yet it's patently obvious that the Sun existed long before humans, and will continue to do so should we be wiped out as a species.
correct me if I'm wrong.