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: cooperton
originally posted by: dragonridr
As i said your wrong and did not understand the experiment go figure. What the double-slit experiment did was make the slits equal the wavelength of the light. When this happens the light interferes with itself giving us a diffraction pattern. Space the holes too far apart or too close together you see particles. Had nothing to do with measuring anything passing through the slits. Again if your going to learn about science at least take the time to get it right.
No lol. Watch this video it breaks it down very simply:
youtu.be...
originally posted by: dragonridr
Different experiment here's the double slit and it shows interference when the wavelength equals the size of the slits
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Proof once again that you know nothing about science or the Wigner quantum eraser experiment. Look it up.
You really should get yourself some good books and stop reading all the cult porn.
That experiment involves the fact that observation generates a conclusion regarding entangled particles. entangled particles establish opposite spin states simultaneously upon observation. You will try to weasel your way out of this empirical evidence because you hate science, but the observer effect is undeniable.
Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process
meas·ure
/ˈmeZHər/
verb
1. ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?
The Copenhagen interpretation, and the evidence that supports it, shows me that the mind and its ability to investigate is a causal factor in the universe. If the things that are being studied have substance, then the mind that is studying it has even more importance. This is of course up for interpretation, but it seems to me that our bodies and the material world are a most fitting interface for the mind to have its existence. I suppose our minds can be traced to the primordial Mind that designed the world we live in, which has most definitely attributes of a design
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can you provide measurement of the extra dimensional mind you mentioned?
The Copenhagen interpretation, and the evidence that supports it, shows me that the mind and its ability to investigate is a causal factor in the universe. If the things that are being studied have substance, then the mind that is studying it has even more importance. This is of course up for interpretation, but it seems to me that our bodies and the material world are a most fitting interface for the mind to have its existence. I suppose our minds can be traced to the primordial Mind that designed the world we live in, which has most definitely attributes of a design
The Copenhagen interpretation does not state that that is your interpretation. Thanks to quantum computing we learned its a matter of decoherence. A person need not be involved to get a wave function to collapse. in order for quantum computing to work you need to maintain coherence. In other words, we are learning how to isolate a system. When we take a measurement we change the system which causes the collapse of the wave function.
"The results suggest that there is no logical reason for the results to be dependent on the person conducting the measurement.According to our study, there is nothing that suggests that the consciousness of the person would disturb the results or create a certain result or reality," says Jussi Lindgren.
This interpretation supports such interpretations of quantum mechanics that support classical scientific principles.
"The interpretation is objective and realistic, and at the same time as simple as possible. We like clarity and prefer to remove all mysticism," says Liukkonen.
The researchers published their last article in December 2019, which also utilized mathematical analysis as a tool to explain quantum mechanics. The method they used was stochastic optimal control theory, which has been used to solve such challenges as how to send a rocket from the Earth to the Moon.
Heisenberg explained the objective character of this registration process as follows.“Of course, the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of Nature. The observer has rather only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the possible to the actual, is absolutely necessary here, and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of the quantum theory. It must also be pointed out that in this respect the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is in no way positivistic. For whereas positivism is based on sensual perceptions of the observer as elements of reality, the Copenhagen interpretation regards things and processes which are describable in terms of classical concepts, i.e., the actual, as the foundation of any physical interpretation.” [5] (p. 22). Thus, Heisenberg neither requires nor refers to the mind, the brain, or human knowledge for the actualization of potential values, which appear in successful measurements as actual values of an observable inferrable from a resulting classically describable record in accordance with the EE-link; only the interaction of the measured system with the greater world in a way so as to produce such a classical record is required. It is such a record from which the mind could later acquire knowledge if the recorded, classically describable measurement outcome is later attended to.
Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]
were all trying to know the truth I hope
We conclude this section with the words of Richard Feynman in Lecture Notes on Physics [148]:
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is the experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of the scientific truth. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws to be tested come from? Experiment itself helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is the imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations- to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
were all trying to know the truth I hope
If you're trying to learn the truth, you have to understand the known science first. If you have a hypothesis that may disagree with what's known, that's fine. But you need to propose an experiment to prove your case. Even if you don't have the resources for an experiment itself, you can write up a protocol suggesting how/why you would conduct it. That's the way you reach the truth.
We conclude this section with the words of Richard Feynman in Lecture Notes on Physics [148]:
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is the experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of the scientific truth. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws to be tested come from? Experiment itself helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is the imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations- to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.
My quom with evolution. There's no evidence that it can actually happen, yet you champion this garbage theory as if it has any basis in reality
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence.
My quom with evolution. There's no evidence that it can actually happen, yet you champion this garbage theory as if it has any basis in reality