The Two-Slit Experiment

[Leon1]

Maybe the universe is God's attempt to achieve full consciousness. Then the physical world is just the way God does it.

But then that would imply that God already has consciousness. God would need consciousness in order to create the universe as a tool to achieve 'full' consciousness in the first place.
In that case how would one define a consciousness evolved enough to create a whole universe and everything it contains against a 'full'' consciousness? If such a god consciousness has a full enough consciousness to be THAT creative how could it be any fuller?

 

[Woodsman]

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.

This observation caused me to sit up sharply.

I find I do tend to get caught up in tunnel vision on certain subjects. Especially dangerous are subjects which really do seem to hold a sort of circular confusion quality to them. This thread has no upper limit, it seems, to its number of 'entangled' ideas which I feel gum up my brain while at the same time egging me on.

Though, to be fair, I also find the exercise useful in several ways. Partly, I've found that forcing myself to understand the fundamentals of our universe is (I think) causing many 3D illusions to break down for me. In conjunction with this feeling, has been a heightened awareness of the 'monkey-ness' of many people around me. I've felt for the first time, (over the past few months), in a visceral way rather than just conceptual, that the human condition as a specific container for the soul is really very limiting in terms of what I can physically sense and comprehend, and also in terms of what the behavioral patterns culture around us spends so much time automatically following. This has been creating a claustrophobia of sorts from which I want to claw my way out.

But is this a result of my explorations into the physics of time and space? It seems that one follows the other; it feels like causation. Or is it, as you suggest may be the case, that my awareness is opening due to different reasons, and fixations on thought exercises are my predator brain fighting to distract me and lock things back down?

Wow, Bud! I'll need to meditate on that quite seriously.

Crossword puzzles, as they say, keep people from contracting Alzheimer's, but with only so much energy and 'time' available, I don't want to waste it chasing shadows.

As an adjunct to this, I remember something which I pushed aside right at the very beginning. . .

My very first thought when I encountered this thread was that, "Why all this confusion regarding the double slit experiment? If there is no 'time', then a particle is really just a thread-like projection which really is in both the beginning state and the end state at the same moment. If it exists in 4th Density, then it would have no trouble knowing the 'past' and the 'future'. Matter is said to be variable in 4th D, after all. The double slit experiment sounds like a thin window where we get to see that reality one 'slice' at a 'time'."

Maybe it's not such a big problem at all.

 

[Buddy]

I don't want to dissuade anyone from following their interests. Lord knows, I follow ALL my interests, EVERYwhere they lead (or as best I can anyway). It was just my intent to point to the wider picture for self-remembering purposes and ask: "Great, so where is this going and how does it fit in with everything else?"

It all may yet be revolutionary, for all I know! :)

 

[Woodsman]

My mind is finally clicking into place on this whole thing. I am getting, "Ohhhh!" moments rather than just "Okay, that sounds logical," moments.

1. If, as Garret suggests, that Entanglement and Measurement are the same thing. . ,

2. If particles become entangled by merely interacting with one-another, (as per Garret's "paper absorbing and emitting a photon" example). . ,

3. If observation collapses possibilities into actualities every time you look at (measure), something. . ,

4. If 'time' is not an important factor in this arrangement. . ,

Well, then a lot of things make a lot of sense.

Here's an example. . .


The waves of energy which make up the desk in front you, the walls, the ceiling. . , if they are observed, have been observed or will be observed. . , then they collapse from energetic possibilities into particles. This might serve to explain why the house you are in can exist even when you look away from it. It allows for multiple entangled observers, (which includes everybody on the planet, (six degrees of Kevin Bacon anyone?), to all experience the same reality. It explains the stability and apparent on-going experience of the whole Earth, this whole reality.

That's in 3rd Density.

In 4th Density, however, we have been told that matter is variable. This adds something new to the question. A new angle to look at this all from.

So. . , what does that imply, given what we know about the double-slit experiment?

Well, it seems to imply that particles can un-collapse into energy waves. (Go from being your desk, walls and ceiling back to being pure energy). -Energy waves which again have new probabilities and which can collapse upon a new observation into a new variation of matter?

And this would be a function of conscious awareness. (In 4th Density, it sounds like matter isn't *randomly* variable, but, *intentionally* variable. You can make it form according to your intentions.)

Such a measurement is then imbued with the power of choice. It is a measurement device no longer passively waiting to see what happens, but which knows that it can influence the outcome of measurement.

Weird!

And going back to Garret's equations. . , if observation and entanglement are the same in terms of their equations, then that implies there must be a third influencing factor, one which can affect things and which would account for conscious involvement. (Meaning, there must be a way to have your observation DO something specific rather than just sit back and allow probability to play out by itself.) So there must be some third equation or group of equations which can be plugged into the double-slit maths to allow for this.

And, well gee whiz, there is indeed a third factor!

Garret dismissed it from his descriptions as a simple mathematical necessity, a byproduct of the maths, though he did stop to comment with interest upon it. He said that measurement was not an On or Off scenario, but rather that there were degrees of measurement. That the efficacy of the measurement device supplied this variable; that you can measure something just a little bit or you can measure it a whole lot, presumably raising and lowering the probability of knowing where a particle will manifest.

Weird!

And I wonder if this doesn't provide a clue. And don't we sort of do that all the time even here in 3rd Density as a function of our being?

I mean. . , we can use the technique of visualization to bring objects and events into our lives by asking for them to happen. (Within the bounds of possibility, of course, not to drift off into YCYOR wishful thinking.) -Anyway, our 3rd Density version of visualization sounds like a weak form of exercising the same abilities which residents of 4th Density might use to affect the variability of matter.

I wonder if there is double-slit experiment out there where one might test not just IF observation affects the results, (which we know for a fact, it does), but IF using certain types of intention coupled with observation can affect the manner of those results in a particular way? Perhaps causing more photons to pile up on one side or the other. . ?

And finally. . .

Everybody being entangled together indicates a sort of commonality of experience. I wonder if that plays into another area of questions I'm intrigued by. . .

1. How is the "speed" of time established? Does our brain key itself to an external wave and frequency? Assuming yes, what is the source of that wave form?

2. How do our brains choose which frame of reality to focus on? Why is Now, Now and how did we pick it?

3. Is this a collective phenomenon? That is, does everybody on the planet all tick to the same clock, and are they all on the same frame, as it were?

Anyway, I just wanted to share some of that stuff.

Things in my personal jigsaw seem to be falling together into a sensible sort of order. Time and reality are slowing forming up into a workable model of understanding which I can apply to all the new knowledge and ideas offered up by the C's. -I don't know if they are correct, but the story my mind tells itself is beginning to match the available observations.

While this is exciting, I also wonder if it's a particularly desirable thing? My "internal dialogue" is catching up with the world around me, and I wonder if that's enlightenment through Knowlege, or just another (albeit, larger) box to have to escape from later.

But enough for now.

Thanks to whoever reads this for sharing their attention. :)

 

[Buddy]

Woodsman, thanks for sharing that. I apologize if I disturb your new found equilibrium on this issue, but unless I'm somehow mistaken, I see an error that is so plain as to be glaring at me, so I must ask...

1) Please define the observer. Who or what is the observer in the context of this experiment?

2) How did we come to know for a fact that "observation affects the results?"

I need to see the answers in order to know if I need to correct my own errors before I go any further. Thanks. :)

 

[Woodsman]

Woodsman, thanks for sharing that. I apologize if I disturb your new found equilibrium on this issue, but unless I'm somehow mistaken, I see an error that is so plain as to be glaring at me, so I must ask...

1) Please define the observer. Who or what is the observer in the context of this experiment?

2) How did we come to know for a fact that "observation affects the results?"

I need to see the answers in order to know if I need to correct my own errors before I go any further. Thanks. :)

Bud, I welcome your critique! I look forward to seeing what you see, so I'll do the best I can to walk the steps you're laying out...

1. The "observer" is a catch-all word indicating a conscious participant on the receiving end of the detection equipment used in the experiment. Detectors might include technology and/or the observers own eyeballs.

2. I am basing that assertion on an assumption. My assumption is that the double-slit experiment, as it has been reported from every source I've ever paid attention to (and perhaps that's the key?) since I was first exposed to the concept in high school physics class, involves the repeated claim that when experimenters try to determine which slits particles pass through, they indeed behave like particles, and when there is no attempt made to count slit-passages, wave-like behavior is measured upon the film medium (or whatever detector is used at the far end of the experiment). My assumption is that this information has been accurately collected and reported.



EDIT:

Adding to point number 2. . .

In an effort to work out how information was collected, I tried to find out how detectors on the slits of the experiment physically worked. I drew a blank as well as some foggy notions about how beam splitters might be used to determine things. In various reports, the detector in a given experiment was often simply a black box labeled, "Detector". In short, I have found myself choosing to trust the experts, which I realize is dangerous.

 

[WhiteBear]

I was under the impression, correct me please if I'm astray, that the observer keeping things like our physical objects in our 3D world from collapsing back into energy waves was the DCM, being omniscient.

 

[Woodsman]

I was under the impression, correct me please if I'm astray, that the observer keeping things like our physical objects in our 3D world from collapsing back into energy waves was the DCM, being omniscient.

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is a "DCM"?

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi Woodsman,

DCM = Divine Cosmic Mind or Dot Connector Magazine. In the context used by WhiteBear, it should be the former. :)

 

[Woodsman]

Hi Woodsman,

DCM = Divine Cosmic Mind or Dot Connector Magazine. In the context used by WhiteBear, it should be the former. :)

Thanks.

I was under the impression, correct me please if I'm astray, that the observer keeping things like our physical objects in our 3D world from collapsing back into energy waves was the DCM, being omniscient.

I would have to agree, (particularly being that I consider each consciousness on the planet to be a fragment of God's awareness at this level). -Except that might leave things too broad for the immediate purposes of this discussion. When one says "God" one has said a mouthful! :)

 

[WhiteBear]

When one says "God" one has said a mouthful! :)

Agreed, but in the context of this thread, where discussion of the nature of material objects turns to musings of things breaking down into energy waveforms and patterns, I thought it was appropriate.

 

[David George]

Quoting Leon

"But then that would imply that God already has consciousness. God would need consciousness in order to create the universe as a tool to achieve 'full' consciousness in the first place.
In that case how would one define a consciousness evolved enough to create a whole universe and everything it contains against a 'full'' consciousness? If such a god consciousness has a full enough consciousness to be THAT creative how could it be any fuller?"

Say that God has enough consciousness to imagine an expanding space. This expanding space creates pressure so that eventually some matter evolves. This matter then creates ever more complex associations, until eventually it evolves human beings who have enough consciousness to imagine that they are "conscious". If we are figments of God's imagination, or represent God's imagination, God's consciousness is now much fuller than it once was. If the universe is endless, then it can keep getting fuller forever without ever being completely full. God did not create the current universe all in one time.
Consciousness is a process, not a "goal" that can be achieved or a container that can be filled.

Quoting Bud

"1) Please define the observer. Who or what is the observer in the context of this experiment?

"2) How did we come to know for a fact that "observation affects the results?"

1) In this experiment, the observer can be the person observing the detectors at the slits, or the detectors themselves.

2) The fact is: when no detector is placed at the location of the slits, the result is that interference appears on the backstop detector. When detectors are placed at the location of the slits, the result is that the interference disappears. Placing detectors at the slits affects the results.

 

[Leon1]

Quoting Leon

"But then that would imply that God already has consciousness. God would need consciousness in order to create the universe as a tool to achieve 'full' consciousness in the first place.
In that case how would one define a consciousness evolved enough to create a whole universe and everything it contains against a 'full'' consciousness? If such a god consciousness has a full enough consciousness to be THAT creative how could it be any fuller?"

Say that God has enough consciousness to imagine an expanding space. This expanding space creates pressure so that eventually some matter evolves. This matter then creates ever more complex associations, until eventually it evolves human beings who have enough consciousness to imagine that they are "conscious". If we are figments of God's imagination, or represent God's imagination, God's consciousness is now much fuller than it once was. If the universe is endless, then it can keep getting fuller forever without ever being completely full. God did not create the current universe all in one time.
Consciousness is a process, not a "goal" that can be achieved or a container that can be filled.

I typed out an answer then lost it, so will try again.

The only way I can agree is in light of C's Consciousness, Light, Gravity, Knowledge discussions mentioned in the wave series.

(will try and type it as I did before I accidently pressed the back key and ended up logged out on last attempt ;) )

--------------

I cannot imagine a God in a Void creating a space in a Void, simply because I cannot imagine a void.

So I will imagine that god is in a space suffiviently evolved to have enough consciousness to be able to create a new space. Howver I cannot imagine space expanding as that space would essentialy be a space containing a void, ie a space with no content. I can however imagine a spark of consciousness within a space large enough to contain that spark.

That spark must have a level of awareness by it simply being consciousness. Theerfore it has the potential to evolve, in its evolution it must grow and the space around it would have to expand to accomodate it. Now the C's say that all matter is a creation of consciousness, and given that then I can see how a new universe could form as consciousness expands, and that new universe/al consciousness could as you say expand Gods consciousness as it returns to scource.

I cannot though wrap my head around the ability to just create a space and have that evolve into consciousness unless that space again is formed by a thought, and that thought is of itself consciousness.

So Mmmm the answer has got to be yes I agree with you.

Quoting Bud

"1) Please define the observer. Who or what is the observer in the context of this experiment?

"2) How did we come to know for a fact that "observation affects the results?"

1) In this experiment, the observer can be the person observing the detectors at the slits, or the detectors themselves.

2) The fact is: when no detector is placed at the location of the slits, the result is that interference appears on the backstop detector. When detectors are placed at the location of the slits, the result is that the interference disappears. Placing detectors at the slits affects the results.

In observation of response number two - 2)

If the detector can be a mechanical or human detector then what observes the interference pattern? Or I am assuming that the backstop detector observed or not has no effect on the outcome? Only the slit area when observed creates affect? If so what happens when both are observed?

 

[David George]

Leon wrote,

"That spark must have a level of awareness by it simply being consciousness. Theerfore it has the potential to evolve, in its evolution it must grow and the space around it would have to expand to accomodate it. Now the C's say that all matter is a creation of consciousness, and given that then I can see how a new universe could form as consciousness expands, and that new universe/al consciousness could as you say expand Gods consciousness as it returns to scource."

Those are very interesting comments. They point to a relation between "space" and "time", which is motion. I work by a particular physical model in which the expanding space (requiring time) is not empty - it is full of "energy". And that "energy" corresponds to a "spark" of consciousness. While the physical space full of energy evolves in a certain way, so does the spark of consciousness. They are the same! I should say that in this model, the source of the spark cannot be located in physical reality. And if some finite space exists, not only can it be expanded forever; it can also be reduced forever, and never disappear. So the universe has no initial "size", nor does it have an initial "time". In this model, the energy source, "creation moment", or God is in the future, not in the past. But that all matter is a creation of consciousness sounds right. Otherwise, at what point would "consciousness" evolve? Signals are being passed back and forth at molecular level, an atom "senses" its environment (i.e., responds). Before that in the evolutionary path is only light - the spark.

"If the detector can be a mechanical or human detector then what observes the interference pattern? Or I am assuming that the backstop detector observed or not has no effect on the outcome? Only the slit area when observed creates affect? If so what happens when both are observed?"

That is right, the backstop detector has no effect on the outcome. It is like a second observer, or recorder, of the result that occurs when the slit detectors are present or absent. The "act of observing" in this experiment is the act of trying to find out which slit the electron (or photon) goes through. In the case of the photon, there is no photon. Left alone, given enough light, some light will pass through both slits and will create a wave interference pattern which may be destructive or constructive depending on the distance between the slits. The backstop detector then clicks a number of times depending on the interference. In the experiment according to QED (simplified from percentages to clicks), there may be no clicks, or there may be four, in a certain time.

With one slit closed, the detector clicks once in that same time.

With detectors at the slits, one detector detects some light (which is then called a "photon") and clicks; the backstop detector detects some light and clicks; but there is no interference, regardless of the distance between the slits; the slit detectors click, but never simultaneously; and the total clicks at the backstop detector is two: the simple sum of the clicks when one or the other slit is blocked (without any detector).

So with both slits open and no slit detectors, the backstop detector may click zero times, or it may click twice as many times as it does with detectors at the slits. Interference suggests wave interference which means the light must go through both slits simultaneously; but the slit detectors never register light going through both slits simultaneously.

I tried to explain that the results of the experiment can be obtained if the slit detectors destroy the possibility of interference because one detector absorbs light (and clicks) while the other does not; but the "same" light (in a different place) passes through the other detector, and proceeds to the backstop detector which clicks.

So the act of observing determines what is observed. It only "upsets" the observation if the human observer has some particular goal in mind. In this case, if the human observer has the particular goal of seeing which slit (or slits) the "photon" goes through, the observer will find that out, but will also destroy the interference. If the observer wishes to preserve the interference, he or she must not try to determine which slit the "photon" goes through, because a photon cannot interfere with itself; and anyway, there is no photon! In other words, you can't have it both ways: you can't try to preserve wave interference and at the same time say there is a photon going through only one slit.

In the case of the electron, there is a single body, an electron. Firing single electrons through two slits one at a time with no slit detectors results in a pattern of impacts resembling a wave interference pattern. So people think the electron must be acting like a wave. I am suggesting it follows a path through one or other of the slits, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field it creates by emitting light. So the electron rides the wave. Detectors at the slits destroy the interference, so the electron has no interfering wave to ride.

 

[Leon1]

Leon wrote,

"That spark must have a level of awareness by it simply being consciousness. Theerfore it has the potential to evolve, in its evolution it must grow and the space around it would have to expand to accomodate it. Now the C's say that all matter is a creation of consciousness, and given that then I can see how a new universe could form as consciousness expands, and that new universe/al consciousness could as you say expand Gods consciousness as it returns to scource."

Those are very interesting comments. They point to a relation between "space" and "time", which is motion. I work by a particular physical model in which the expanding space (requiring time) is not empty - it is full of "energy". And that "energy" corresponds to a "spark" of consciousness. While the physical space full of energy evolves in a certain way, so does the spark of consciousness. They are the same! I should say that in this model, the source of the spark cannot be located in physical reality. And if some finite space exists, not only can it be expanded forever; it can also be reduced forever, and never disappear. So the universe has no initial "size", nor does it have an initial "time". In this model, the energy source, "creation moment", or God is in the future, not in the past. But that all matter is a creation of consciousness sounds right. Otherwise, at what point would "consciousness" evolve? Signals are being passed back and forth at molecular level, an atom "senses" its environment (i.e., responds). Before that in the evolutionary path is only light - the spark.

Yes I would agree, and it has been interesting looking at the whole god/consciousness/creation issues from this perspective, as I have not done so before.

Also everything has vibration, ie everything is a wave does sit well with this too.

Time being motion and visa versa makes me think that in a system where time/motion can speed up and slow down itself being a wave (everything is a wave). that 'the universe/creation is balanced then there must be a cancelling out as each half of the wave interacts or the greater consciosness collapses the wave, not realy thought that part through yet ie the time factor as we see it in this physical dimension.

Maybe the fact that the vibration at our physical level is too strong/slow to be collapsed by mere consciousness, because we are always behind time, or Mmm hard to explain, too slow a vibration that gives us the illusion that time is passing.

However if we raise our vibration then we have a greater effect on collapsing the wave that is time, or we lets say are at the same speed of that vibration/wave that there can simply be no time because we as percievers are not playing catch up in the vibration race anymore as we resonate with the greater reality.


I did type a lot of other stuff related to the other half of your response but again lost it.

New laptop and hitting wrong keys may be the problem ie being absorbed and not taking care in typing. But I did not realy have anything else to add or ask on that topic so won't bother retyping, it was just nme thinking out loud in print anyhow.