Question about quantum theory.

[neema]

In her work Laura highlights the concept that at a fundamental level molecules are popping into and out of existence. And that nothing is fully solid.

I am trying to better understand this concept.
Would appreciate being pointed in the right direction where I can grasp the theory in more detail but using laypersons terminology.

What is not clear to me is if you are using an electron microscope to look at your sample, is the “popping action” phenomenon because of the observer effect?

As in we the 3D user are only limited to the choice in not that “it” does not exist per-say, but that all possibilities exist simultaneously but due to our nature we only “see” what we expect to “see”?

Furthermore this “biased seeing” is it due to the nature of the 3D realm or our genetics play a major role in it?

Is it that we are literally choosing our reality, from an infinite pool of the “all”, at the instance of observation due to our limited genetic nature?

I know it seems a very basic understanding but I don’t think I really “got” it before.

I’m looking to refine some of my "nuts&bolts" understanding about this concept.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

Hi neema,

Here's few youtube links i've found useful explaining some basic quantum physics consepts.

quantum physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVpXrbZ4bnU

many worlds theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNwKPfOKipk

As in we the 3D user are only limited to the choice in not that “it” does not exist per-say, but that all possibilities exist simultaneously but due to our nature we only “see” what we expect to “see”?

Furthermore this “biased seeing” is it due to the nature of the 3D realm or our genetics play a major role in it?

Is it that we are literally choosing our reality, from an infinite pool of the “all”, at the instance of observation due to our limited genetic nature?

The way I understand this is (and correct me if wrong):
Because 3D beings have linear conseption of time, we are limited seeing only one single timeline. But in reality all the possible options would exist. In one reality you're married, and in another you're single. And that timeline you're on gives birth to all kind of branches by the choises you and others make, that will take you to different reality. But we can't choose anything we want, from the infinite pool of the 'all'. I can't just decide to be a great carpenter tomorrow. But making choises every day to learn this skill, I create that reality where it's more probable to happen.

I understand that our subjectivity would be the 'biased seeing' you talk about. There would be genetics and environmental factors influencing it. Even though we can't never understand reality like 4D beings would (operating outside of time, seeing all the timelines at once, I think), there's still objective reality that's shared with all levels of being. for instance, our reality overlaps with those in the 2D animal kingdom even though they don't have the same mental reality as we do. When we build our knowledge and apply what we've learn, we are expanding the choises we can make (free will) and create new possible branches in the timeline.. osit.

 

[neema]

Thanks for the info it gave me more perspective.

 

[ark]

"What is not clear to me is if you are using an electron microscope to look at your sample, is the “popping action” phenomenon because of the observer effect?"

"Observer" can be replaced by "measuring device". Intelligence is only needed for "interpreting" the results.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

"What is not clear to me is if you are using an electron microscope to look at your sample, is the “popping action” phenomenon because of the observer effect?"

"Observer" can be replaced by "measuring device". Intelligence is only needed for "interpreting" the results.

Can a measuring device be a naturally occurring object (like an atom or molecule or something), or must it be a human-designed contraption?

 

[Human]

Can a measuring device be a naturally occurring object (like an atom or molecule or something), or must it be a human-designed contraption?

To my knowledge, yes.
The measuring device is something that "captures" the state of observed system ("collapses the wave function"). E.g. if system that is being observed is an atom, then another atom, theoretically, could be used that would be "frozen" in the state of the observed atom in the moment when measurement takes place.
I just can't think of a mechanism that would enable such a "copying" from observed atom to the "frozen" one...

That reminds me on teleportation (from Star Trek series), which kind of requires technology of copying the exact quantum state of an object to another one.
Please, call Mr. Scottie, he's an expert on that one. :P

 

[davey72]

Has anyone been able to measure the effects that expectation, and anticipation have on the observer affect? I am thinking of the men who found Flight 19. Extract from "The Wave": - A: Patience, we are, but must do so slowly… What they found were five planes matching the description, and “arranged” in a perfect geometric pattern on the bottom of the ocean, but the serial numbers did not match. Now, first mystery: There were no other instances of five Avengers disappearing at once. Second: Two of the planes had strange glowing panels with unknown “hieroglyphics” where there should have been numbers. Third: When they tried to raise one of the planes, it vanished, then reappeared, then vanished again then reappeared while attached to the guide wire, then finally slipped off and fell to the bottom. Fourth: In one of the planes, on the bottom, live human apparitions in WWII uniforms were temporarily seen by three exploratory divers and videotaped by a guide camera. Lastly: Three of the planes have since disappeared. All of this is, naturally, being kept secret!

Q: (S) I wonder where the planes came from. (L) That is the obvious question!

A: Parallel reality, you see, when something crosses into another reality, it accesses something called, for lack of a better term, the “thought plane”, and as long as that reality is misunderstood, the window remains open, thus all perceptions of possibility may manifest concretely, though only temporarily, as thought plane material is constantly fluid.

Could this be part of the secret technology obtained through projects such as "The Philadelphia experiment"? It seems to be the case with 4D, and 3D, at least in some respects, but has anyone been able to "observe", or "measure" this phenomena in, and of itself?

Please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

 

[3DStudent]

Can a measuring device be a naturally occurring object (like an atom or molecule or something), or must it be a human-designed contraption?

To my knowledge, yes.
The measuring device is something that "captures" the state of observed system ("collapses the wave function"). E.g. if system that is being observed is an atom, then another atom, theoretically, could be used that would be "frozen" in the state of the observed atom in the moment when measurement takes place.
I just can't think of a mechanism that would enable such a "copying" from observed atom to the "frozen" one...

I was kind of thinking more of: Can an atom be the observer that collapses the wave of another atom? I'm not versed on quantum physics, but that's what that line of thought brought me to.

Kind of like, what level of complexity does something have to be, to be an "observer"?

 

[Human]

I was kind of thinking more of: Can an atom be the observer that collapses the wave of another atom? I'm not versed on quantum physics, but that's what that line of thought brought me to.

Kind of like, what level of complexity does something have to be, to be an "observer"?

I think it can.
Example that comes to mind is so called hydrogen burning in stars.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction
According to mainstream stellar nucleosynthesis, two protons come together to form 2He (diproton) which mostly decays back to two protons. In rare cases it undergoes beta-plus decay (one proton becoming neutron) to become deuterium (2H). Deuterium then can fuse with another proton to produce 3He (helium-3 isotope). So, theoretically, a proton can be an "observer". Coming "into contact", i.e. conducting a measurement on diproton, it collapses its wave function. It "looks" if diproton's beta-plus decay took place and "decides" to form helium-3 according to results of its observation.

I think that information gained from observation/measurement determines the observer (measuring device). If something can "use" the information, than it can collapse the wave function. In other words, IMO, collapsing the wave presents extracting/obtaining information. If the "instrument" (whatever it is) can obtain the information, then it can be an observer.

 

[John G]

I was kind of thinking more of: Can an atom be the observer that collapses the wave of another atom? I'm not versed on quantum physics, but that's what that line of thought brought me to.

Kind of like, what level of complexity does something have to be, to be an "observer"?

I think it can... If the "instrument" (whatever it is) can obtain the information, then it can be an observer.

Yes for experiments with photons, the photons themselves can even be their own "observer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

However, in 1982, Scully and Drühl found a loophole around this interpretation.[11] They proposed a "quantum eraser" to obtain which-path information without scattering the particles or otherwise introducing uncontrolled phase factors to them. Rather than attempting to observe which photon was entering each slit (thus disturbing them), they proposed to "mark" them with information that, in principle at least, would allow the photons to be distinguished after passing through the slits. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the interference pattern does disappear when the photons are so marked. However, the interference pattern reappears if the which-path information is further manipulated after the marked photons have passed through the double slits to obscure the which-path markings.