The Two-Slit Experiment

[kryon]

:D, This is very Interesting and mind bending, time going back and forth electrons splitting but not splitting. I am enjoin the challenge of reading it.
Not that I understand much of it, but one thing made an impression to me-
There was no mention of the surrounding environment as if the experiments were made in completely isolated point of time and space.
It reminds me of very bright fish who comment on the nature of their interaction with a drop of water while they are immersed in the ocean.
With that said, I would like to assure you that everything I read here was quite inspiring and informative, just that I felt you are ignoring the immersion. Like inside water it will be present everywhere and it will affect everything. Just my opinion.
Loved the challenge.
Is there more?

 

[go2]

I am not qualified to review Nick Harvey's Art Poetry and Quantum Atom Theory, but I will link to the active site and its many videos which have fascinated me for several weeks. His view is that time is created each moment by photon-electron coupling which occurs continuously becoming the past to infinity. The future is the moment of the creation of time moving forward as a time-line determined by probabilities of Quantum Mechanics. It seems as if synchronicity or necessity focuses the mind of many on quantum change, which is what we seem to be experiencing now.

So, are we are God's Dice Players? :)

This channel has been set up to promote Quantum Atom Theory a theory on the geometry and symmetry of light and the broken symmetry of spacetime. In this theory the individual atoms are creating their own Time by the emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation (light). The observer as a group of atoms is also creating his or her own spacetime geometry relative to their position and momentum.

Therefore the observer is the only true reference frame and we have relativity. The probability of the Uncertainty Principle is the same probability that the observer will have with any future event because time is the Hidden Variable. We know time is a variable because we have time dilation when objects accelerate towards the speed of light and also around objects of great mass.

In this theory we only need three dimensions and one variable of time. The parallel universes of Hugh Everett and the multiple dimension of String Theory are just individual space-times within our one three dimensional Universe. These space-times are on every level of creation from the Planck constant to objects of our everyday lives. Because time is a measurement and a variable we have the Measurement Problem of quantum physics. Time is only relative to the energy or mass of the object forming the spacetime.

We have Quantum Entanglement because light has spherical symmetry and therefore photons will have opposite spin when they are on opposite sides of the light sphere. Therefore the dynamics of light will form a universal process of symmetry forming and breaking for the whole Universe. This will create a mathematical base for the evolution of life. It is because life can choose when and where to collapse the wave function breaking the symmetry that we have freewill. Life will create its own ripples in the fabric of spacetime forming its own broken symmetry of its own evolutionary path.

In Quantum Atom Theory the outward momentum of light or EMR creates the inward force of gravity. When EMR comes in contact with another object it will be absorbed in proportion to the mass of that object. This will create an unbalanced force and the two objects will resonate together.

Because atoms consist mostly of empty space EMR of short wave lengths like x-rays can penetrate the objects. Therefore every single part of matter can take part in the gravitational interaction.

The gravitation field will propagate at the same speed that EMR moves, the speed of light therefore there is no instantaneous action at a distance.

We have the inverse square law because the surface area of the light sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

This is my theory I am only an artist and therefore outside of the scientific community because of this there is no peer review. But any help promoting this theory on You Tube or in the scientific community will be gratefully welcomed. The aim of this theory is the unification of quantum and classical physics. Too see behind the paradoxes and probability to see the true simplicity and scientific beauty of our Universe. Those that look upon this theory and comprehend will see their own infinity without end.

 

[David George]

Thank you for the advice Woodsman, I have taken it to heart. I have been thinking about these things for a long time, and at one point put it into a quite long book (a self-publishing on CreateSpace, run by Amazon). I didn't do anything with it, just sent the PDF and got one copy back - it is a very cheap way of getting a draft. So I let it rest for a few months, went back to read it, and found it was almost unreadable (except for the equations). I started reading again, and learned a lot from my mistakes. Now I have even more pages (typewritten due to circumstances) and it is a challenge even to sit down and sort out the pages. I am scatterbrained, and it is a big subject! So when I came upon this site I thought it might be a way to "write" in a concentrated way again, onto a computer - as a record, just as you say, but still with the possibility of inputs, rebuttals, etc. Not belonging to any physics community (and being sometimes without a computer), I have had very little opportunity to talk to anyone knowledgeable about these subjects, and very little (if any) response when I did, being a "layman". So after talking to walls in the past, I decided to put up notices on this wall, to see what would happen (if anything). My aim was to set out the model of an electron (and consequently a model of the universal system itself!), and it needs some kind of introduction, and the two-slit experiment seemed like a way to do it (I didn't think much about it once I decided to do it this way). Maybe I will think more about how to do it, before I carry on. Maybe I put too much into single posts, but it's done now.

Anyway, I don't want to give the impression of discounting the role of the conscious observer in the experiment, or in the universe! I believe we are the local eyes of God, if God is the power that powers the universe (and that is the model - but does God, in the future, know what is going on here in God's past?). And we have great power given to us by God! And there is a lot to be done with that power, but today we (led our "enlightened" leaders, hah!) have lost our way, and if we are lost our science is also lost.

On the delayed choice experiment, I have read about it (some time ago), I believe in "The Road to Reality" by Penrose (from the library). Is it where the entangled photons are sent off far across space out of any possibility of contact between them, and after they are sent an observer makes the choice which axis to measure? And in other experiments, the experimenters are able to make shapes by "long distance" (maybe that is not delayed choice but another kind). I have no problem with these experiments. My problem is with what seems to be a mystical component in the "choice" of measurement, that there is an instantaneous effect caused by the observer. In that sense, every conscious (and unconscious!) choice we make in our lives produces an instantaneous effect. The effect in the delayed choice experiment may be at long distance, but the cause is us sending off the photons, which in turn is an effect of us choosing to send off the photons! (And for example if we fire a gun, the effect is also at long distance.)

I do not believe the delayed choice of measurement axis determines what happens - it has already happened, either at long distance or at short distance. That is determined by the photons (pressure wave events) or electrons (spatially extended bodies). Our choice to make the measurement on some particular axis is just that - a measurement choice, like choosing to measure someone's height instead of their width. In the electron experiment, the "x" and "y" axes are indeed incompatible observables, because the interaction of the electron with the magnetic field determines whether it will be spin up or spin down - and hence determines what is observed. Measuring at 90 degrees puts the magnetic field at 90 degrees. But say we make a spin measurement of one particle on the "x" axis - we can say with fair certainty that the other particle would have opposite spin on that axis, even if we measure the other particle on the "y" axis. So what do we want to know by making the second measurement? In a sense, we are choosing not to know!

The problem (as I see it) is that there is no model to tell us how the electron could interact with the magnetic field to cause it to have a 50% chance of flipping when the field is rotated 90 degrees, and to follow the q.m. law at other angles - we don't know the machinery. It is that lack of knowledge of the electron-photon machinery, lack of a model, even ignoring the possibility of a model, that causes the mystical attachment to our choice of measurement. I am trying to make a model that describes the (possible) machinery! And it turns out (I think) that the model produces a hidden variable that we can never predict. So q.m. remains the best way to deal with it - it is doing a pretty good job at it, but I say (hanging onto Einstein's coattails) that it is not a complete description of physical reality.

I only have dial-up here, and my computer doesn't let me see movies. I don't know whether the websites mentioned are movies, but if I see something downloading that is a lot of megabites, I cut it off (unless I know it is not a movie). It might be useful if you give your view of the delayed choice experiment, how it works, and what it means. Please say if you disagree with my interpretation, or where you don't follow my reasoning.

Kryon,

Compared with any professional physicist I would be the dullest bulb in the room. As far as physics goes, they are too smart for words. It is only from thinking and reading about these things (basically in isolation) over almost twenty years that my words come out the way they do. Regarding immersion, I believe the entire universe is immersed in a sea of light - which we cannot see, but which illuminates everything we do see. And not only our sight but all our senses, at their roots, are due to our immersion in that sea (which we cannot see).

There is more to come, firstly on the electron model - it just needs to be set up in a clear, easily understood form - and maybe shorter pieces.

 

[Woodsman]

I've had the double-slit experiment running through my head for several days now thanks to this thread!

It seems to cut to the core of many things, and I am making some headway in understanding the various modes of thinking behind it.

Anyway, I ran across this fellow's presentation on Google Tech Talks, a maths/software engineer who also disagreed with the normally accepted model and offered an alternative way to think about things. His explorations are based largely on the math, and he uses simple proofs.


http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks#p/u/3/dEaecUuEqfc


He's got a quite readable paper upon which the talk is based posted here. . .

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

His main points include. . .

1. Measurement and Entanglement are the same thing, which solves a core paradox.
2. He explains that his theory demands that all of reality is a holographic projection of our consciousness. (That our brains are small classical computers running like virtual computers inside a big universal quantum computer. Kind of like Java, I guess.)

While I don't claim to fully grasp his work, I thought that his second point was intriguing in that it matched up with what the C's stated about the nature of reality being a big holographic projection.

I had to watch the talk twice and read the paper between viewings to "get" it. I don't know if anybody else cares enough to do this, but I am finding my little journey through these parts quite helpful in a number of ways not directly associated with the subject itself. Seeing the illusion, I suppose.

(Warning; the audio is a bit bad for the first bit, but clears up further in.)

 

[Woodsman]

Following is a selection of text from Ron Garret's paper (discussed in my previous post). . .

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

He spends time explaining himself using the existing and accepted maths and offers the following conclusions. . .

6. Philosophical implications of QIT

Quantum information theory offers some attractive features as a story to tell
about quantum mechanics. It describes quantum measurement in terms of
quantum mechanics itself. It describes how classical correlations arise from
quantum entanglement. It provides an account of the (apparent) increase in
entropy in the measurement process that is consistent with entropy-conserving
unitary transformations. Most importantly, QIT completely explains the
"mystery" of spooky action at a distance by describing measurement in terms of
entanglement. The quantum-information-theoretical description of a pair of
measurements made on an EPR pair is exactly the same as a pair of measurements
made on a single particle. “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more
(and no less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which makes the
universe consistent with itself from one moment to the next.

Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition because it insists
that we abandon our usual notions of physical reality. The mathematics of
quantum information theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real. To
quote Cerf and Adami:

... the particle-like behavior of quantum systems is an illusion
[emphasis in original] created by the incomplete observation of a
quantum (entangled) system with a macroscopic number of degrees
of freedom.

and

... randomness is not an essential cornerstone of quantum
measurement but rather an illusion created by it.

So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite right: not only is the
moon is not really there when nobody looks, but it isn't really there even when
you do look! "Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical reality is.
We are not physical entities, but informational ones. We are made of, to quote
Mermin, "correlations without correlata." We are not made of atoms, we are made
of (quantum) bits. At the risk of stretching a metaphor beyond its breaking point,
what we usually call reality is “really” a very high quality simulation running on a
quantum computer.

This is a very counterintuitive view of the world, but the mathematics of Quantum
Mechanics tell us unambiguously that it is correct, just as the mathematics of
relativity tell us that there is no absolute time and space. Entanglement, far from
being an obscure curiosity of QM, is in fact at its very heart. Entanglement is the
reason that measurement is possible, and thus the reason that the Universe is
comprehensible.

Enlightening as this new insight may be, it does leave us with the vexing question:
if what we perceive as reality is only an illusion, what is the "substrate" for this
illusion? To quote Joe Provenzano: If reality is an illusion, who (or what) is being
illused? If reality is a magic trick, who is the audience?

The best I can offer as an answer to that question is a Zen koan from Douglas
Hofstadter:

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is
moving." The other said, "The wind is moving." The sixth
patriarch, Zeno, happened to be passing by. He told them, "Not the
wind, not the flag. Mind is moving."

The body of Ron Garret's work looks reasonable and level-headed to me, (he is clearly an engineer and not a theoretician!), but I'd be interested in those with stronger maths background than mine in weighing in.

I post his work here because he seems to have something new to tell the world in a manner which seems to make sense.

But again, I'm not well versed enough in this stuff to really say for certain.

 

[John G]

Following is a selection of text from Ron Garret's paper (discussed in my previous post). . .

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

He spends time explaining himself using the existing and accepted maths and offers the following conclusions. . .

...Most importantly, QIT completely explains the "mystery" of spooky action at a distance by describing measurement in terms of
entanglement. The quantum-information-theoretical description of a pair of measurements made on an EPR pair is exactly the same as a pair of measurements made on a single particle.“Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to the next...

...We are not made of atoms, we are made of (quantum) bits. At the risk of stretching a metaphor beyond its breaking point, what we usually call reality is “really” a very high quality simulation running on a quantum computer...

Math-wise one could perhaps say we are physical Lie Algebra spaces derived from Clifford Algebra information. Oddly enough though even the universe as quantum computer would be down in the physical Lie Algebra. The ultimate high level information is likely even stranger than quantum physics. This also leaves some room for our brains to be quantum computers too.

Probabilities for the present come via future interference thus future effects past causality. This also means things in the present came via paths that were looking ahead to the future. Measurement can pick only allowed things. The spookiness comes from allowed vs not allowed requiring a knowledge of future things (that can be at a distance). It's perhaps really that the future possibilities already exist so you can't help but to go to allowed places cause the not allowed ones don't exist.

 

[Woodsman]

In review, the three things which struck me about Garret's presentation were,

1. His absolute faith in the unbreakability of the FTL rule, which the C's say IS indeed possible.

2. His belief that we didn't need to perform anything more than a thought experiment to "know" the truth of the exercise he was founding so much of his work on. This seems really weird in retrospect from somebody who was so adamant about people going out to perform the double slit experiment on their own in order to really get in touch with it. But then, that's one of the more common differences, I think, between scientist-thinking and engineer-thinking.

3. I've seen another presenter on Google Talks who made a very stirring case for the human brain being a quantum processor. His suppositions include structures called, "microtubuals" which he considered to be logic processing components working on a quantum basis.

What I liked about Garret's presentation was his confident use of what appeared to be relatively simple maths to make his points, his explanations of what entanglement was, (I'd been having a hard time with that concept), and his explanations of how some of the experimental apparatus worked in the more complex double slit experiments involving beam splitters and light filtering materials.

What I still am trying to understand is exactly how his approach breaks away from the accepted systems. I can hear the words and read the explanations, but they don't quite click in my head yet. . .

More to learn. . !

 

[Leon1]

hehe, the physisist did walk out at the end there. :)

But seriously, I have no Physics background and am fairly thick when it comes to math. But those equations looked to symetrical, too sort of mmmm how can I say, too convenient. I love patterns, I am artistic (celtic art using Pyrography) and love symetrical patterns, they just looked too symetrical. Symetrical art can explain lots of ideas and concepts, and the math looked like that, as if they were multi translateable. They were too simple for this simple mind, because I could understand them up top a point where I normaly cannot. basically I was left unconvinced, and at the end he just left a titbit to the new age that said aye your right guys bye bye now. Sort of a, you can all go home now bye bye.

So now all the bliss bunnies can agree that they are already god and pure consciousness and that there is nothing else to see here so move along. My radar was tweaked and I trust my radar.

I think that there is plenty of logic and more to the theory and this is part of the missdirection. But Then as I say I dont know Physics and can only react with my intuition and gut feeling on this. To me its missdirection.

Now if someone can educate me then feel free , I am always open to learning. But I did not feel this was authentic. I feel it comes close then missdirects.

Leon

 

[Buddy]

hehe, the physisist did walk out at the end there. :)

But seriously, I have no Physics background and am fairly thick when it comes to math. But those equations looked to symetrical, too sort of mmmm how can I say, too convenient. I love patterns, I am artistic (celtic art using Pyrography) and love symetrical patterns, they just looked too symetrical. Symetrical art can explain lots of ideas and concepts, and the math looked like that, as if they were multi translateable. They were too simple for this simple mind, because I could understand them up top a point where I normaly cannot. basically I was left unconvinced, and at the end he just left a titbit to the new age that said aye your right guys bye bye now. Sort of a, you can all go home now bye bye.

So now all the bliss bunnies can agree that they are already god and pure consciousness and that there is nothing else to see here so move along. My radar was tweaked and I trust my radar.

I think that there is plenty of logic and more to the theory and this is part of the missdirection. But Then as I say I dont know Physics and can only react with my intuition and gut feeling on this. To me its missdirection.

Now if someone can educate me then feel free , I am always open to learning. But I did not feel this was authentic. I feel it comes close then missdirects.

Leon

Fascinating, because I'm in agreement with you! Every time I got caught up with this thread, I felt like I was waiting for the punch line or something. :)

If I'm not mistaken, this QM science seems to have collected some unfortunate myths. One such myth is that just because no one understands the quantum mechanical world today, we can be sure that quantum mechanics is beyond human understanding.

Heck, if artists had believed that sort of thing, they'd never have tried to solve the problem of perspective! And the same thing is true of every other human accomplishment! Another myth is that just because we don't have the answers to some questions, normal people can't even understand the questions - which is equally untrue. I say 'normal' in the sense that I have no physics training either, but I can do research, follow logic and ask questions.

From my perspective, the core puzzle of quantum mechanics seems very easy to understand and does indeed involve the slit and double-slit 'experiments', OSIT.

I was kind of surprised that Feynman's work was mentioned in the first post on this thread, and yet when curious_richard mentioned time flows, David George seemed unaware of Feynman's remarks on the subject (or even the concepts of 'backward causation' or 'retro-causality').

When Richard Feynman sorted out the mathematics of quantum mechanics to make it useful, he introduced a notation called Feynman diagrams. In Feynman diagrams, particles in flight can also be thought of as their anti-particles traveling backwards in time (an anti-particle is just like the corresponding particle, but has an opposite electric charge - uncharged particles are their own anti-particles).

To be fair, I believe Feynman always insisted that his diagrams are abstracted aids to keeping the sums straight and should not be taken literally, but the idea is right there. He himself liked to speak of "retarded waves" traveling forwards in time and "advanced waves" traveling backwards in time, so perhaps he didn't take his own warning all that seriously either. :)

What happens if we dare to embrace this backwards in time idea? For one thing, the bizarre way that we can only speak of probabilities in quantum mechanics seems to suddenly make sense. If there are two chains of cause and effect interfering with each other, as Rudolph Steiner said around 100 years ago, then we can't ever know the full set of causes of anything happening, because some causes are in our future and haven't happened yet.

Besides, as far as Feynman was concerned, wasn't his talks on the double-slit experiment often presented as a thought experiment, for the purpose of describing in a nutshell, fundamental quantum paradoxes?

There was also a minimizing of the observer on this thread as Woodsman rightly pointed out. The conscious observer, it's point of view as well as it's (vested) interest in the act of observing is a critical part of any experimental setup, because the old classical observer in physics was discovered to be based on a flawed assumption. It seems obvious now that any observer that can interact in a system is intimately connected to that system on every level of it's being.

Our very cells both send and receive messages constantly- to each other and to and from the system we are embedded in. The classical observer, by contrast, was somehow connected to the system being observed and simultaneously disconnected from the system so that nothing would interfere with the observation; i.e., the photons in the experiment had no connection to the photons that bind the observer's eyeballs, for example.

Concerning the experiment, itself, as I see it the problem here is in how one actually determines when a photon passes through one of the slits, or maintains the superposition, without destroying the photon. I don't think you can simply put a photo-detector at one of the slits and expect that photon to pass through unimpeded. That is why they used a correlated photon as a "twin". By acting on the twin, and by knowing how they are correlated, one has essentially made a determination when it is passing through a slit, or both slits.

From what I have gathered from past research, the actual experiment most often pointed to when folks start asking questions is the experiment conducted by Tonomura at Hitachi Labs [Am. J. Phys. 57 117 (1989)] (_http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/501/links/double_slit_experiment.pdf). But they simply demonstrated the wave-behavior of electrons fired one at a time through double slits. They did not additionally demonstrate the disappearance of the interference pattern when an attempt was made to determine which slit each electron passed through; i.e., the "observer effect".

I understand why most of these experiments are 'thought experiments', though. The needed imaging technology isn't there yet. Plus, thought experiments tend to make the problem look easy enough to solve conceptually, but the actual testing of it isn't! That's why in the simplest conceptual experiment, it takes a lot of effort to get a clean result.

If I've got something wrong or whatever, please feel free to offer questions or corrections.


---------------------
Edit: added a link

 

[Leon1]

hehe, was late, had a very tiring day and a bottle of wine (my once a month treat) so need to explain myself a little more on reflection.

While the first observation of the wave or interference pattern is a fascinateing phenomena, the use of mirrors/prisms or other doohickies he/one uses pretty much allows the experiment to come out as pretty much as he/one wishes. He demonstrates using the polerisation films that one can have a hand in how light can be allowed or inhibited from passing through the different configurations of films. The experiment pretty much uses mirrors and such to alter the trajectory and polarisation of the beam and by creating what ammounts to a reflection or mirror mechanism of the gadjetry the two configurations are cancelling out the wave with an anti wave if you like. The math mirrors tha,t and seems to me that the math is describing the machanics, the tools so to speak, the symetry of the math reflects the symetry of the setup of the machinery.

If the light is the nature then the machinary, the interference from man, is defining and creating that outcome (altering the nature and the path of that beam) and the configuration of the machinary can be altered to fit whatever outcome they wish (with the knowledge of polarisation). That's how it looks to me anyhow, so realy proves only that this sort of experiment is literaly playing with lights and mirrors that are then (no pun) reflected in the math and visa-versa.

Now to me this would seem pointless, unless you wanted to missdirect and take interest away from what other implications could be sought from further study of such phenomena. Or I am just far too cynical and misstrusting for my own good. hehe

 

[Buddy]

OK, well, at least you were more on topic. I was thinking 'distraction' in discernment terms.

My intuition suggests that the central objective or core concern or primary motivation should have appeared by now, so here is a larger view as I see it:

Since the change of focus at Sott, the 'Science of the Spirit' section has featured at least 3 articles on a subject like Precognition:

Study Provides Evidence for Precognition:

Feeling the Future: Premonitions and Precognition - Elements of Practice and of a Theory

Between Physics and Psychology


...and there are many articles on the benefits of meditation, the effects of stress on the brain, etc. Not to mention discussions on the electric universe.

If people are taking the esoteric and self-improvement stuff seriously and putting any of it to use, then maybe some of them are actually 'turning on' previously 'turned off' parts of their brains and learning to 'see' things in ways they weren't used to before. From these benefits, some people may be exploring previously misunderstood concepts and maybe others would like to see this activity diverted to unproductive tail-chasing.

As I understand it, the left-brain can fixate a person in mathematical and rule-following mode because it never developed the ability to maintain it's own grounding in the context of what it was thinking about. That is what the right-brain and inductive mind is for, OSIT and why I think that only when a person's natural faculties and abilities are fully 'turned on', does empathy have it's fullest expression and lead to attempts at real change - personal and societal - like what is being attempted on a macro-social scale.

With that in mind, I think that when people start losing their addictions and gently lift the heavy burdens of buried emotions, people start to get the hang of what has been going wrong and start to break free of even more robotic fixation. And this can lead to naturally remembering more context and seeing new possibilities or solutions to problems opening up, that they didn't notice before. Unlike stress or boredom addiction, there's nothing like withdrawal stress (that proceeds too quickly) locking limiting, narrow scope thinking into place.

So, I'm looking at the current societal context, including what SoTT is doing, while all this QM math is being introduced.

This stuff all may be totally legit and lead to something for all I know, but at the moment, I see it as a lure into a less-aware, tighter-focus mode. Personally, I feel like not being in reductionist mode right now, cuz there's a lot going on that I'm keeping track of.

Interestingly, I have no conflicts with the "universe as quantum computer and the brain as a self-similar copy on a smaller scale" idea. Only, I'm wondering if the consciousness is really "ours" or if that is a bit of hubris?

Maybe David George will come back and add some more info.

(Gee, I hope nobody is thinking: "That dang Bud...he messes up everything!" :D )

 

[Leon1]

Now to me this would seem pointless, unless you wanted to missdirect and take interest away from what other implications could be sought from further study of such phenomena. Or I am just far too cynical and misstrusting for my own good. hehe

Just noticed that this could be missread. Its a Northrn colloquialism. Meant to refer to the person doing the missdirecting ie the man with the message in this case the man on the podium.
hehe dont want it to appear that I am pointing at you the reader. Language can be missdirecting too, need to take more care with my posts.

;)

Leon

 

[David]

Theirs one thing about sensors, if they are calibrated to detect a specific signature of something, for example if a sensor is to detect a rock passing in front of it, it could not differentiate between something that has the same signature as a rock and a rock as we define it.

Its almost comparable to stories where people had encountered, men in black, things that had a signature of a human being but were not and were read as humanoid.

Perhaps we are all calibrated just to function within a certain band, I know we can only see within a certain band of frequencies, beyond that we cannot see what's there, except when something happens outside or inside that changes out perception or enables a greater perception or deception to take place.

After reading the tread, I think the only thing happening in the two split is just a phase shift introduced between the two waves from the same source, after interacting with the field of the apparatus or even a single hair would seem to do the same thing.

Maybe time as we perceive the illusion, works in the same way, is right there in front of us just out of phase and we cant read it and other things are right there also just beyond our perception in this timeline as we perceive it.

But then the C’s did say ‘thoughts create things’, even a post.

I'd go along with what bud says ‘The needed imaging technology isn't there yet. Plus, thought experiments tend to make the problem look easy enough to solve conceptually, but the actual testing of it isn't! That's why in the simplest conceptual experiment, it takes a lot of effort to get a clean result.’

Anyway.. Just my two cents fwiw

 

[David George]

I have read that in the Feynman diagrams an anti-particle moving "forward in time" can be read as the particle moving "backward in time". It is valid mathematically I think. So the positron (anti-electron) can be taken as an electron moving backward. I think this is because in the Feynman diagram, "forward in time" moves upward on the page, and so by reading a reaction downward, you come across a particle moving "backward in time". So that is how Feynman comes to say, "The electron moves backward in time and..." But it is mathematics.

I thought I had explained what happens in the two-slit experiment with photons. Interaction with detectors (two, A and B) at the slits causes a "photon" to register at one slit. But while that "photon" registers, it is the unregistered "photon" which proceeds to the backstop detector (D). In the two-slit experiment with electrons fired one at a time, with no detector the electron goes through only one slit, but it also creates an electromagnetic field which influences its path to the detector, so there is apparent interference. With detector(s) at, or a light source behind, the interference is destroyed (yes, "out of phase"). This solves the "mystery". So there is no "mystery" as far as this behavior is concerned: measuring (observing, detecting, whether human or machine) influences (upsets) the measurement. However, solving this little mystery (central to q.m. but only in the sense of understanding the universe, not in the sense of making predictions since q.m. makes very good predictions based on statistics) does not solve the mystery of consciousness! The simplest atom is a sensing system; each molecule of a living cell is a sensing system; etc. At what point does sensing become consciousness? Maybe the universe is God's attempt to achieve full consciousness. Then the physical world is just the way God does it.

 

[Buddy]

...solving this little mystery (central to q.m. but only in the sense of understanding the universe, not in the sense of making predictions since q.m. makes very good predictions based on statistics) does not solve the mystery of consciousness! The simplest atom is a sensing system; each molecule of a living cell is a sensing system; etc. At what point does sensing become consciousness? Maybe the universe is God's attempt to achieve full consciousness. Then the physical world is just the way God does it.

I'm assuming by consciousness, you mean human consciousness, since that would seem to be a logical starting point? Why does human consciousness have to be a mystery? How much more do you want to invert your 'looker' in order to see your reflection, and what do you think such a reflection could be made of?

I think that, linguistically speaking, consciousness without something to be conscious of, is a contradiction in terms, leading to the logical conclusion that consciousness is an 'integrating dynamic' for putting things together, not necessarily reducing itself to nothing. But that's a philosophical argument, I suppose.

From a more practical view, if we assume that consciousness is a property of Universe and is bound with matter, then the human consciousness is just a reflection of the Universe consciousness, but on a smaller, more local scale, relatively speaking.

And that, only because we experience ourselves having a unique focal point of awareness and sense of being a 'self' in relation to, or perhaps because of, this matter/data stream.

But what if that is only because our nervous systems and brains are sophisticated enough to rapidly combine and integrate data streaming in from the universe while the brain is sophisticated enough to function as a kind of stochastic cooling device, allowing the data (that belongs to the universe) to spin around in our heads long enough for the universe's own data to become self-reflecting?

In this scenario, our focused point of awareness can, indeed, shift itself inside or outside any context of data in order to 'feel it'. This would seem to explain all kinds of things, from how we could be points from which Universe can see itself, how we can dissociate, to 'identifications' to the 'social self' to a 'feeling of being God or Caesar', and back to having 'just' a unique human identity, OSIT, because we're nothing in particular; perhaps, until we fuse a 'singular I'.

Whew! Just asking questions. I may actually have no clue! :)