Collapse of the wave function.

[Oopsie]

...and yet still you understand very little about quantum mechanics....

Geez. I studied physics for 3 years at the Uni of Technology and worked in that field for most of my working life. Hence my interest in the subject.

You quoted Wikipedia as a source and I was pulling your leg. Wiki will downplay it as it has a woo woo factor attached to it in the form of "consciousness can have influence through space". The founder of Wiki will not allow this as it is not to his thinking. If the experts in the field try to edit it, it will keep reversing back. No editing allowed here.

There remains 2 schools of thought on this and it just depends on your belief system.

This all depends on what the experimenter knows. If quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a conscious observer then why does a particle behave based on what an experimenter knows or doesn't know? If materialist are correct, then a particle should behave as a wave or a particle independent of observation but that's not the case.

 

[NoLogic001]

And I still have great difficulty understanding what a wave actually is (In this context of it not being a chain reaction of particles transferring energy like water)

In any event there's something about this whole double slit theory and the mass hysteria of a simulated universe that just doesn't sit comfortably with me and I don't know why. Intuitively it feels like bull manure. Meh... I don't have 1000 hours to spend figuring it out and convincing myself either way

Hi,

Check out this link for more info.

https://youtu.be/KKr91v7yLcM

 

[Oopsie]

People keep asking me for source so here goes but first an introduction from a professor that reviewed Radin's paper.
" This result given by Radin`s experiment( see internet),to me it is a result indicates a reasonable conclusion regarding the
consciousness-related interpretation of quantum mechanics".

Here is the paper not that anyone here will read it.
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2012doubleslit.pdf

Here is the YT video. Not that anyone not in the science field will understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

 

[NoLogic001]

Geez. I studied physics for 3 years at the Uni of Technology and worked in that field for most of my working life. Hence my interest in the subject.

You quoted Wikipedia as a source and I was pulling your leg. Wiki will downplay it as it has a woo woo factor attached to it in the form of "consciousness can have influence through space". The founder of Wiki will not allow this as it is not to his thinking. If the experts in the field try to edit it, it will keep reversing back. No editing allowed here.

There remains 2 schools of thought on this and it just depends on your belief system.

This all depends on what the experimenter knows. If quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a conscious observer then why does a particle behave based on what an experimenter knows or doesn't know? If materialist are correct, then a particle should behave as a wave or a particle independent of observation but that's not the case.

Oopsie, you need to understand that the act of observing/ measuring/ detecting causes the interference. It is really as simple as that.

The "uncertainty principle" is one of the fundamental laws of quatum mechanics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Also, if you are uncomfortable with Wikipedia as reference I suggest you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

He has some real insight on the matter.

 

[Oopsie]

Do not quote me the biased Wiki. I will not read it.
Stephen Hawking has not contributed anything to science yet. No Nobel Prize ever. His fame is his own situation.
Not that I do not like him, I actually do as he has a good sense of humor for the situation he is in but then I also like James Randi for his wit.

In a recent poll, taking Randi as the marker at No.1, as the most skeptical person, Hawking ranked at 12. This is almost on par with Sherman Editor of Skeptic Magazine, Wales...Founder of Wiki.

 

[Nirv]

Do not quote me the biased Wiki. I will not read it.
Stephen Hawking has not contributed anything to science yet. No Nobel Prize ever. His fame is his own situation.
Not that I do not like him, I actually do as he has a good sense of humor for the situation he is in but then I also like James Randi for his wit.

In a recent poll, taking Randi as the marker at No.1, as the most skeptical person, Hawking ranked at 12. This is almost on par with Sherman Editor of Skeptic Magazine, Wales...Founder of Wiki.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/publications.html

No contributions? I'm afraid that's completely false.

It's strange that you think a Nobel is the only relevant measure of contribution. Plenty of brilliant people have contributed hundreds of publications that form the backbone of entire areas of science without being considered for it.

 

[GazWrack]

PBS SpaceTime - short explanation of the double slit

Undoing causality by recreating the wave function after it collapses

The double slit experiment is mind blowing enough, but the undoing of the wave function collapse is even more astounding.

 

[Xarog]

http://www.hawking.org.uk/publications.html

No contributions? I'm afraid that's completely false.

They're only contributions if they turn out to be legit.

It's strange that you think a Nobel is a relevant measure of contribution. Plenty of brilliant people have contributed hundreds of publications that form the backbone of entire areas of science without being considered for it.

How strange that a prize given out to people who've made significant contributions to various academic fields would be considered a relevant measure of someone's ability to contribute to an academic field... /s

 

[Nirv]

They're only contributions if they turn out to be legit.


How strange that a prize given out to people who've made significant contributions to various academic fields would be considered a relevant measure of someone's ability to contribute to an academic field... /s

Haha true, I was typing while half asleep and meant to write "only" with regards to the Nobels. Obviously they're a sign of great contributions. I meant to say that they're not the only measure of contribution. That was pretty much my only point. Apologies for the unfortunate error.

 

[Xarog]

Haha true, I was typing while half asleep and meant to write "only" with regards to the Nobels. Obviously they're a sign of great contributions. I meant to say that they're not the only measure of contribution. That was pretty much my only point. Apologies for the unfortunate error.

Fair enough. But by the same token, I know that Hawking tends to catch quite a bit of flak for being a celebrity scientist who has lost quite a few bets over the years.

And as much as I haven't bothered to look at the specifics of this claim, the idea that consciousness can affect things at a great distance is really not all that remarkable once you accept that non-locality seems to be a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics.

In fact, who is to say that consciousness itself isn't the quantum uncertainty that lies on the other side as far as our physical senses are concerned? It seems the two can never touch, and yet are intimately connected.

 

[oober]

Possible commercial applications for this. Most basic at turning something on and off. You just need a compact device that measures quantum effects and any deviation in real time caused by thought of wanting to turn it on or off.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Do not quote me the biased Wiki. I will not read it.
Stephen Hawking has not contributed anything to science yet. No Nobel Prize ever. His fame is his own situation.
.

Awesome attitude there!! In the pursuit of knowledge I will not read anything that might possibly disagree with my opinion. Hope that works for you.

And I didn't know that not winning a Nobel Prize actually means that you haven't contributed to science at all.

Wait a minute.....didn't Obama win a Nobel prize for doing nothing?

 

[Xarog]

Awesome attitude there!! In the pursuit of knowledge I will not read anything that might possibly disagree with my opinion. Hope that works for you.

I think anyone who actually has a degree in this stuff has reason enough to be pissed off with keyboard warriors on the internet pasting wiki articles in their face as if they're suffering from some kind of ignorance.

 

[Oopsie]

Awesome attitude there!! In the pursuit of knowledge I will not read anything that might possibly disagree with my opinion. Hope that works for you.

And I didn't know that not winning a Nobel Prize actually means that you haven't contributed to science at all.

Wait a minute.....didn't Obama win a Nobel prize for doing nothing?

The ultra pseudo skeptic Wiki has been discussed to death and I have no wish to repeat it here.
As to Obama, I don't think he has contributed anything to science. We are talking SCIENCE here and not politics.

 

[Oopsie]

Since QM was first discussed over 100 years ago scientists have been looking at the materialistic way to explain it but were stumped at every attempt.
Even today many scientists cling to the Newtonian science and will not change their thinking. Materialism is the only science.
They post cr@p on the internet on this subject that suits their thinking.

Some years ago these materialistic scientists stated that the photons or atoms were "bumped" by the instruments to cause the collapse.
This was proved to be wrong 16 years ago and skeptics were put to bed.

The sticks and balls science is sadly still cherished by many science scholars and it is so sad.

 

[Xarog]

What is a particle but a wave confined to a point?

 

[C4Cat]

...and yet still you understand very little about quantum mechanics....

I think that's true about everyone

 

[Oopsie]

And as much as I haven't bothered to look at the specifics of this claim, the idea that consciousness can affect things at a great distance is really not all that remarkable once you accept that non-locality seems to be a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics.

In fact, who is to say that consciousness itself isn't the quantum uncertainty that lies on the other side as far as our physical senses are concerned? It seems the two can never touch, and yet are intimately connected.

Good point Xarog. NoLogic has no science background and does not know that QM scientist have little understanding of QM and now I get told I have no understanding. I do not but if she/he (avatar suspicious) has then he/she should tell the world and explain how it works.

My personal take on it is this and bear in mind that science does not need "proof" as it is only used in mathematics and alcohol. In science it is all about "strength of evidence or sigma".

It is not the "measurement" but the "information". We may perhaps live in a reality of information. Once we have the information of where the photon was at the slits in our reality, it HAS to remain as a particle IN OUR REALITY.

Take awhile and think it through.

 

[NoLogic001]

Good point Xarog. NoLogic has no science background and does not know that QM scientist have little understanding of QM and now I get told I have no understanding. I do not but if she/he (avatar suspicious) has then he/she should tell the world and explain how it works.

My personal take on it is this and bear in mind that science does not need "proof" as it is only used in mathematics and alcohol. In science it is all about "strength of evidence or sigma".

It is not the "measurement" but the "information". We may perhaps live in a reality of information. Once we have the information of where the photon was at the slits in our reality, it HAS to remain as a particle IN OUR REALITY.

Take awhile and think it through.

You have obviously made up your mind regarding what you want to believe, who am I to try and convince you otherwise.
I have provided some reading meterial that could possibility counter your view and that is far as I'm willing to take it.

I will leave you though with this question.

The instrument one would use to detect /measure partical waves. How would it work?

Similar to a microscope or the eye maybe? Would it gather information based on light (photons) that bounces of and object? Is it not the only way we have of observing the world. Could it be the emit of photons from your instrument could possible cause an interference on the partical wave? Could that mean that there will always be a level of "uncertainty" regarding real-time posistions of a particals?

If there is no way of observing the current state of a partical, how would one claim that something like thought could influence it?

 

[Hamish McPanji]

I think anyone who actually has a degree in this stuff has reason enough to be pissed off with keyboard warriors on the internet pasting wiki articles in their face as if they're suffering from some kind of ignorance.

Yet throwing out information as biased without even bothering to consider it is just as stupid.

And having "a degree in this stuff" does not actually mean you have a sensible and sound approach towards something. I have met and equal amount of educated and uneducated idiots in many fields