Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

The strange world of quantum reveled through the double slit experiment






I think there is a lot we don't understand about the nature of the universe, including matter and energy.

Alan
 
I have seen this before in more detail and the idea that things behave differently only when we are watching is wrong.
I think there is a flaw in their test method, their detector could be interfering with the results, I think it in fact is.

It's like quantum entanglement, I still don't believe it's correct.

Yes there is a lot that we don't understand, and there are also things that we initially get wrong sometimes.
But I am always willing to accept that some things we don't yet understand. In time we will. :)


p.s. I can't rep you yet, but I owe you one for your many contributions that help expand our knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Have either of you looked into the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

https://youtu.be/H6HLjpj4Nt4

The outcome of this experiment appears to settle the question that knowledge of what is happening alone affects the result. To me, this means our consciousness is part of reality itself, that we can affect the result of the experiment because our interaction forces the program behind reality to produce logically consistent results. I suspect this means our own individual consciousness is an integral part of the system which runs reality, that we ourselves are the matrix, that we do not live in a objective reality, at least, to consciousness. If this is how reality works, I'm wondering if there is a way to hack the program enough to get the administrators attention?

To be able to write the above and thinking this is how it really is requires going down the rabbit hole too far, I fear :p A little levity to the craziness of what I just wrote had to be added and I realize these are more thought exercises than not, but they interest me.

There is an article at this link which fairly well sums up what I'm calling objective and subjective reality, perhaps too subjective?

http://www.dingtwist.com/reality-is-subjective/
 
Last edited:
No matter how hard I try I can't make myself believe this, however if our consciousness effects outcome then I want to apply this to a craps table asap.
 
It seems like quantum entanglement may be able to be used some day for communication, something like the subspace communication in Star Trek.

Another strange experiment I am sure some of you have heard of are the Princeton Eggs, the experiment has been going on for many years, they are random number generators all over the world, and before major events they become less random. This also implies that our consciousness or observation of events has an effect on the random number generators in the past, or maybe it means that events are sometimes not random. :eek:

Alan
 
There are two kinds of human thoughts:
Those that handle the physical that does exist and...
those that handle the non-physical that is fiction that doesn't exist.

To human beings, physical reality appears to be made of material objects and immaterial active phenomenon. We do perceive the reality of objects and active phenomenon through our body senses, and in return we can describe that perception of reality. An object or an active phenomenon is real or exists on the double condition that we are able to first perceive it then describe it.

By contrast that, which doesn't exist in reality, the non-physical, can only exist in our minds! Evidently we cannot perceive through our body senses that which does not exist in reality, and as a consequence we are unable to describe that, which doesn't exist.

Mental concepts that lack physical collateral cannot be perceived physically and our inability to describe that which doesn't exist, corroborates that nonexistence.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying if we can't sense something to be able to corroborate its existence through physical scientific means that it does not exist? If so, this was not true in the past and for some things, I expect is not true now, for other things may not be true for thousands and thousands of years to come, until we advance enough to be able to do so.
 
A common misunderstanding to Schrodinger's cat type events: it isn't the fact that we are watching something causes a change in the outcome, it is that our tools and methods of observing something have side effects which alter the state of what we're watching, and this alteration is what causes the outcome to change. A crude analogy would be a blind person using a walking stick to "see" where obstacles are; if the stick has enough momentum it will move any obstacles out of their original place, and the blind person will perceive either nothing being at that location or the object being at an altered location.

Now, regarding the double slit experiment, it's actually quite well understood phenomena; read the first chapter or two of Faynman's "QED" for thorough "math-free" explanation.
 
My copy of Feynman's rules of Quantum Electrodynamics is loaded with math. I pull it out when I want to torture myself. :)
 
Alaskan said:
Are you saying if we can't sense something to be able to corroborate its existence through physical scientific means that it does not exist? If so, this was not true in the past and for some things, I expect is not true now, for other things may not be true for thousands and thousands of years to come, until we advance enough to be able to do so.
Click to expand...

Almost was saying that, but not exactly. Scientific means are not necessarily needed. I guess I was saying, everything is possible in imagination, not so in the real world, in a round about way.
At it's simplest---
There are two kinds of human thoughts:
Those that handle the physical that does exist and...
those that handle the non-physical that is fiction that doesn't exist.

Here are things that we perceive, along with their description, which are physical or exist in reality:
Because we can touch them, material objects are physical, and exist in reality. In conjunction with that reality that does exist outside our minds, we make crystal clear mental images of material objects within our minds. And in return we can describe them.

In the real world, there is the phenomenon of gravitation; occurring outside our minds, gravitation is a live entity in a manner of speaking; as such gravitation is physical yet unlike material objects gravitation is non-material.
Even though one cannot touch gravitation as one does material objects, and even though gravitation acts out of immaterial space, because gravitation makes objects fall, gravitation is physical. Similarly even though one cannot grab them with one's hands, light rays are physical because they have a physical effect, light rays from the sun heat up our skin.
Both gravitation and light rays, even though non material, are physical and do exist or occur in reality because they act on matter; we clearly perceive their respective effects with our body; and in return we are able to concisely describe these effects. Our perceptions of and then our descriptions of gravitation and light rays corroborate their physical existence.

Even though we have no idea what matter, gravitation and light rays are (in reality), and even though our human interpretations of these things are only ideas (concepts and pictures) we know that these ideas do coincide to real things. We can touch matter, gravitation makes an object fall and light from the sun heats our skin.

This all brings up a story that I love to this day---so will share it as follows:
If you are looking for the key to the universe,
I have good news and bad news.
The bad news is there is no key to the universe.
The good news is it has been left unlocked!
 
Last edited:
paul1598419 said:
My copy of Feynman's rules of Quantum Electrodynamics is loaded with math. I pull it out when I want to torture myself. :)
Click to expand...

AFAIK his QED book and "Rules of QED" as referenced by collegiates are two different pieces of literature. His QED is just the fleshed out dictations from a few of his lectures, and they're reformatted to be discernable by anyone with 1950s era high school math skills (aka, me, XD ). My version is published by Princeton Science Library, paperback ~160pgs.
 
Encap I agree.

Sigarthur: it is that our tools and methods of observing something have side effects which alter the state of what we're watching...
Click to expand...

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiments completely negate the effect of a sensor, don't you think? My opinion is that experiment completely removes all doubt that the sensors themselves force the wave to collapse, as theory goes:

https://youtu.be/xo176uIPmbY
 
Last edited:
How can we be aware that something behaves differently when we are not aware of it, for to know that is to be aware???

Where do we draw the line? In the moment of observation, and that moment extends to recorded events that could make us aware after the fact, but only within that experiment, but not to the time of this conversation, because now we are aware so did what happened just change.

How can we be conscious in the moment that the test happens if we need equipment to see it, or observe a recording of the event after the fact, we would not have been conscious in the moment of the test.

I am going to need to see much more conclusive proof of this, I really don't think we are anywhere near that important to the workings of matter, somewhere there is an error in this test. Are we to believe that our ability to be conscious after the test of the test changes the result in advance because particles know that we could be conscious this time?

There are many problems with this.

We know gravity dense objects warp the fabric of space time, the gravity B project, the fact our GPS has to calculate for time dilation, I understand things that seem impossible are not because there is an explanation.

But this idea that our watching or not watching changes reliably how matter behaves either has a mechanical connection or not....what if 5 people in the room are not watching but 1 is, now we have a 5 to 1 non conscious to conscious ratio?

I am willing to be convinced, but I will need to see a lot more testing and proof that the results are accurate, I think this is looking like something that it's not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top