Does the Double Slit Experiment, prove, that we live in a simulation?

The effect this thread has on me is a deeper understanding of cause and affect.

When a photon is being observed, does it end its journey there or continue on effected by the observation, reflect?
It would be a presumptuous postulation that light eventually 'tires' which is not absorbed, affected somehow. How is it we can see a laser perpendicular to the direction the focused beam travels if light is merely straight-line 'particle' travelers, or particles at all, or even bound waves? Maybe light creates space, and simply does not just define space.

I don't see how in this double slit experiment they manage to get light to travel to the slits perfectly perpendicular to the threshold. I guess I should have watched the wave one again. Never mind me. I think the experiment is flawed.

reply to post by James1982

The initial idea that a human can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came from the results of the double slit experiment being different, depending on whether or not we were measuring the photons at the actual slit.

Respectfully, I would suggest that the idea that humans can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came long before the double slit experiment.

Humanity did no sail across the seven seas because ships grew on trees. Someone, somewhere, perceived a ship, and this perception turned into an event that radically changed the outcome of humanity.

The frustration that seems to arise from the "cold, calculating, detached attitude" of the scientist or physicist, I am guessing, stems from people wanting to find some correlation between what you have just argued and what I countered with. Deepak Chopra can be quite maddening to those who understand the physics of this experiment, and I can totally relate to this frustration, and indeed often times I too get frustrated with Chopra's giant leaps of correlations between the esoteric and physics.

Depak Chopra, however, is not Lao Tzu, and the Tao makes no attempt to claim scientific knowledge, and only endeavors to offer a way. A course in which people might take to better navigate this mystery of life. In offering this way, the Tao seems to have tapped into understandings that in themselves are more of a quantum based understanding than the linear understanding of physics.

I brought up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics earlier because it is observably so that more than just closed heat systems tend towards entropy. I am not nearly versed enough in the language of mathematics to handle all the variables that would constitute a closed economic system, and if we were to actually conduct an experiment to back up my hypothesis that all closed systems, not just heat systems, tend towards entropy, it would probably be a good idea to study the variables in open systems as well, but who is doing this? How many physicists are willing to conduct experiments in this way, as opposed to sticking with the more comfortable field of chemical reactions?

This is my concern, that we have come to a point where science has gone back to being arbitrary when it suits its purposes, and only falling back on the scientific method when castigation of the non scientific seems to them to be warranted. That "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" are treated with the same respect, in spite of the dogmas that exist within some of these fields, while the metaphysical is dismissed as a tool for the ignorant.

All in all, though, both yours and CLPrime's contributions in this thread have been invaluable and necessary. These discussions are, in my not so humble opinion, very important for those who are attempting to find a greater understanding of the universe of which we reside.

reply to post by Illustronic


Don't forget about: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

That is why Star Trek transporters are equipped with " Heisenberg Compensators"



en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by tomten


Here's a recent TED talk on visible quantum objects. It's gets interesting as he performs a similar experiment with a constructed item and it behaves differently based on whether it's being observed or not well worth the watch.

Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

Had a problem with the embed so just posting the link.

-S

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Respectfully, I would suggest that the idea that humans can change an event, or outcome, by simply perceiving it, came long before the double slit experiment.

I didn't word that the best. What I meant, was the double slit experiment's results being used as evidence that human observation can change something. The idea for this came from a misunderstanding of the reasons for the results changing depending upon how it was being observed. I wasn't trying to say that nobody thought the mind had powers over reality and/or matter before the double slit experiment took place, simply that the misinterpretation of the experiment's results led to an incorrect idea about the slit test being evidence of such a thing. Sorry for the mix-up there.

I would have to agree wholeheartedly with you about the way scientists deal with things. Believe me, I'm no fan of how heard-headed most of the scientific community is. They ignore and insult ideas outside of their little sphere of understanding, and attack other people's ideas based on things they themselves also do.

That being the case, I still tend to lean more towards mainstream science than metaphysics and that type of thing, but I do keep my mind open to nearly any possibilities. Things that are accepted as scientific fact are constantly changing, so this idea that most scientists have about nothing being true unless it fits into their current understanding seems stupid and dangerous to advancement.

Science SHOULD be a method of seeking truth, so I find it sad that most in the scientific community refuse to actually grow and learn, but instead seek to solidify their current standing and defend old ideas that don't hold up to current findings.

So I think we agree more than we disagree, the angle we approach this issue just seems to a differ a bit. Even though we were slightly at odds at the beginning, I gave you some stars because I'm happy with the way this little debate (if you can even call it that) turned out. I'm so used to everything quickly degrading into name calling and petty bickering here on ATS, so this was a nice change of pace heh heh.

alienryderflex.com...

Does a polarizing filter actually polarize light?
If one polarizing filter doesnt polarize light, then why
do two at 90 degrees block it?
What is light crushing as described in above link?

so is this a quantum experiment or not? The
first author seems to be saying since most of the light
gets through the first filter it is not polarized.

"Obviously, something else must be happening."

Well what is that something else?


Second author claims both explanations are right?

www.physicsforums.com...

I am way out of my league when it comes to this stuff, but i certainly did enjoy the video..and trailed off to some other ones. One question:
If the beams of light are so small, wouldn`t the molecules of air, etc, act as water would? Other than that question, which I'm sure the answer is FAR over my comprehension, the only other comment I have is that:

Agent Smith from the matrix sounds like Carl Sagan.

reply to post by CLPrime


That is exactly what I was thinking. Did they try positioning the detectors differently? Bet that would make a difference, The slightest change in the conditions of the test could affect the results.

But I am still a firm beliver that we can steer our lives in the direction that we want. Whereas anxiety, anger, or pessimism would be the "detector" of sorts interfering with the end results.

OK, I puzzled over this for nothing. It appears I remembered the double-slit experiment incorrectly (or maybe I learned it before the single-particle experiment was done?) Anyway, it's already known that single photons or even single electrons will exhibit wave behavior and produce interference patterns. It's the claim that "the act of observing which slit the photon/electron passed through collapses the wave-function and produces particle behavior, removing the interference patterns." This is the part I take issue with. HOW exactly was the experiment changed to observe one slit? I would argue that it is not "observing" that changed it, but some physical change to the experiment by the presence of the observation equipment.

Now, if they did the following and it worked, I would be impressed -- set up the observing equipment, hard-wired directly to a computer and monitor in an empty, locked room. The equipment will be designed in such a way that even though we know it is technically observing and displaying the results, regardless of which slit the electrons passed through, absolutely no permanent change will have occurred, either in the room, inside the computer, anywhere. The details on that would be tough to iron out, but in the end if you managed it, and they found that the interference pattern was there for the "destroyed information case", and gone for the "retained information case", then I would be impressed. Until then I just want to know what methods were actually used for observation.

Originally posted by CLPrime
It's not all that mysterious once you realize that "observation" of particles involves direct interference of the system with whatever we are observing those particles with.

I'm glad somebody gets it!

All your posts in this thread are fantastic.

Originally posted by James1982
Say you have a little wind tunnel, and then say you want to measure the wind speed with a little fan that spins faster as the wind blows harder.

Obviously this little fan blade is going to disrupt the natural flow of the wind in the wind tunnel. Are we changing the wind just by looking at it? Not at all. The natural flow of the wind is changing because there is a fan in the way, that is disrupting it.

Wow! Two people get it! I'm impressed!

And that's a great analogy.

I'm always amazed how misinterpreted this concept is, by some people who are not scientists. And the second source in the OP is one of the worst offenders. That's from the movie "what the bleep do we know" where one minute they are talking about some valid aspects of the double slit experiment, and the next they are talking about the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior? Please, I would have thought people would be too smart to fall for that nonsense, but it's apparent when many laymen watch that movie they can't tell where the quantum science ends and the quantum nonsense begins.

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

No, I think it proves that really weird and as yet inexplicable things go on at the sub atomic level. Trying to take those sub atomic occurrences and apply them to what we see here in macro world ends up resulting in a lot of woo-woo nonsense.

Now if you could do that experiment with a cheese sandwich or a dog, rather than an electron or a photon, or anything named after Bucky Fuller, maybe you've got my attention.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

You can actually calculate the deBroglie wavelength of a cheese sandwich or a dog, but when you do, you understand why quantum effects, which may be present in these objects, are not observable.

The analogy I'd use there is when you drop a marble, is the marble accelerating toward the Earth, or is the Earth accelerating toward the marble?

The answer is, both. But the acceleration of the Earth toward the marble, while it can actually be calculated, is so small as to be unobservable. Quantum effects on sandwiches are also unobservable, but they may exist as much as the Earth's acceleration toward the marble. It's easy for me to see why we would disregard both of those, yet I see countless claims of people thinking quantum effects apply to large objects. They do, but not in any meaningful way.

maybe the particles that miss the gaps are bouncing back and rebounding of the walls. Waves act this way do they not?

A rearview mirror in a car crumples this theory into toilet paper

Originally posted by Sly1one
could imply many things...

I personaly think it is a prime example of exactly how powerful "perception" is and that it does indeed "change" things. If the mere act of percieving or observing particles changes the way in which they act who says that this cannot be duplicated to some degree on a "larger" scale and with more control?

Perception is everything...

100% agree with you. To change ones perception of reality is to change ones reality itself. Reality is nothing more than ones perception of it.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by CLPrime

 

That is exactly what I was thinking. Did they try positioning the detectors differently? Bet that would make a difference, The slightest change in the conditions of the test could affect the results.

The next level of this experiment is the delayed erasure.

They used the detectors and before looking at the pattern on the back wall (wave or particle pattern) they deleted the information. What they found was that deleting the information after measurement had the same effect as not measuring at all, a wave pattern.

If they keep the information (but don't look at it) it is a particle pattern.

This proves that the measurement does not collapse the wave function but the existence of information does.

Good thread!

I have been very interested in the digital/simulation view of reality for a while. I love how we as human beings can translate or subjective human experience, to an objective understanding of reality that seems to drive our technological progress. It is as if reality is programmed to self-replicate over, and over and over. It happens everywhere we look. Pretty awesome. But so simple.

Originally posted by snoober
reply to post by tomten

 

Here's a recent TED talk on visible quantum objects. It's gets interesting as he performs a similar experiment with a constructed item and it behaves differently based on whether it's being observed or not well worth the watch.

Aaron O'Connell: Making sense of a visible quantum object

Had a problem with the embed so just posting the link.

-S

edit on 20-6-2011 by snoober because: misspelling

Well.. That is really amazing.
Thank you for posting the link.

Here it is, embedded.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
alienryderflex.com...

Does a polarizing filter actually polarize light?
If one polarizing filter doesnt polarize light, then why
do two at 90 degrees block it?
What is light crushing as described in above link?

so is this a quantum experiment or not? The
first author seems to be saying since most of the light
gets through the first filter it is not polarized.

"Obviously, something else must be happening."

Well what is that something else?


Second author claims both explanations are right?

www.physicsforums.com...

edit on 20-6-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

The photo-polarizing filters.
They polarize the light in a wide way, similar to a Laser.

Two of the same type of filters, in 90 degree angle, do block most of the light, yes.

Originally posted by Jezus
The next level of this experiment is the delayed erasure.

They used the detectors and before looking at the pattern on the back wall (wave or particle pattern) they deleted the information. What they found was that deleting the information after measurement had the same effect as not measuring at all, a wave pattern.

If they keep the information (but don't look at it) it is a particle pattern.

This proves that the measurement does not collapse the wave function but the existence of information does.

Provide a link to this outlandish claim. I'd be very interested if it were true, but right now it's just words on a screen by someone on ATS.

reply to post by James1982

When the photons go through the experiment the first time, they are free to act with no interference other than the "wall" with two slits.

With the photons go through the experiment the second time, they are not free to act as they did originally, because we are interfering with our tools used to measure the photons. Thus, we get a different result.

This is what I am talking about.

The second time, the visualization-program has to generate a wave instead of a particle.
Else the photon can not be observed both at the Slit and at the Wall.

The visualization-program just adapt to what we want to see.

How about that?
Does it compute? :-)

Originally posted by Jezus

The next level of this experiment is the delayed erasure.

They used the detectors and before looking at the pattern on the back wall (wave or particle pattern) they deleted the information. What they found was that deleting the information after measurement had the same effect as not measuring at all, a wave pattern.

If they keep the information (but don't look at it) it is a particle pattern.

This proves that the measurement does not collapse the wave function but the existence of information does.

This is true. I think that many here, who are assuming that the whole quantum weirdness can be explained away simply by claiming that the act of detecting alone changes the results, are missing the big picture. I too recall experiments where detectors were used but the information was deleted or destroyed and the quantum state did not change. If the info is stored and or retrieved, the quantum state changes to that of a particle and the wave function collapses.

I will search for a source, but I know I have seen it in many different articles.