Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does What the Bleep Do We Know have any close cousins?
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 4 of 24 (513669)
07-01-2009 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Son Goku
06-12-2009 7:44 PM


Strange stuff
Doesn't the double slit experiment show that when we focus intention on some of the most basic building blocks of life they recognize this? Brian Greene said this in his book as well or am I confusing the 2?
I am not suggesting this means intelligence. But if something acts different because a human or instrument a human is using for observation is present it has knowledge.....
Is quantum entanglement false? WTBDWK talks about in detail. As has both Brian Greene & Cox. If the some of the basic building blocks are connected and can instantly communicate as if space did not exist. If the basic building blocks of life wizz through an omnipresent yet unknown field.
If light is relevant to the observer in some ideal or all situations doesn't this make light aware in one way or another of an object(human) to be relevant to?
If we combine all these concepts this mass/energy, these strings, these particles whatever the hell they are to me they IT seems somewhat aware I am here. Some of these particles somehow communicate. These particles make up all there is myself included. Why is it off limits to suggest we might be able to be aware of the connection these particles have or 'move' them in another personal way without machines. If they are what makes me why is it obscene for me to assume I will be unable to control them or interact with 'em.. I use the word "them" loosely.
That said I consider myself anti-theist. I took offense when Harris mentioned that spirituality might have a place. I do not wish to debate my position on religion just demonstrate I am not looking at this from a religious POV. These basic basic things make up the signals that travel through my nerves to move my arm. So, I guess I am thinking in a more mechanical way like that? Ya dig?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Son Goku, posted 06-12-2009 7:44 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 12:48 PM Purpledbear has replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 07-01-2009 5:12 PM Purpledbear has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 6 of 24 (513758)
07-01-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Perdition
07-01-2009 12:48 PM


Re: Strange stuff
First thank you for the reply.
quote:
I'm not sure what 2 you're refering to, but the double slit experiment I'm aware of shows merely that light acts as both a particle and a wave, by releasing single photons, but still getting an interference pattern.
The information on WTBDWK, the cartoon doctor, said when we observe light during the double slit experiment it acts differently when we put a measuring device to attempt to observe which slit the light goes through. (3:50 of the movie). The conclusion is all physicists agree that the electron was aware it was being watched (4:42). Then in the final seconds the cartoon doctor says, "The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing" If this is a true account of the experiment this implies to me that "it"(something) is aware or has knowledge of me, my observation or intention to look at it. If this is not a true account where can I read about a true account? - I think I know see below.....
(Cartoon Dr explains double slit):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
quote:
Here, it sounds like you're confused on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where the act of measuring something changes the thing we're measuring, making our measurments more tentative. Or perhaps you mean QM in general, like Schrodinger's Cat, where mathematically, we have two states until we view one or the other, but as far as I know, this is just mathematically speaking.
It seems here you clarified my confusion. You also demonstrated the conclusion the cartoon arrived at is false. However, it is too complicated for me to understand. If one day I desire to understand why the cartoon is false should I just google: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle & Schrodinger's Cat to begin my journey?
So it is your opinion the movie is just presenting material to fit their 'means'?
quote:
Quantum Entanglement is indeed true, and a very interesting field of research. Perhaps one of our more knowledgeable resident physicists can help you with that one.
So you do agree that somehow the most basic building blocks of everything are somehow connected and in perfect conditions or always have the ability to communicate at infinite distances as if space did not exist? Here is the cartoon video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk
quote:
I don't know what you mean here. Relevance is defined by the observer, not the observee...
So I(the observer) have the ability to somehow impact the speed of light or have the ability to make it unique to me. IF 2 observers view light from 2 different perspectives and they obtain 2 different measurements both are correct?!?!!!? Well, it is freaky. Well, something is somehow changing(being impacted by observation/intention or measurement) or something is aware it is being observed so it changes itself. NO?!?!?!!?!?! OH MY GOD! MY BRAIN HURTS!
To your final comment I agree. Although connected I am unable to make my well uhhh you know grow longer because I wish it. Nor can I do this with my hair or finger nails. But, haven't some been able to demonstrate they can control their heartbeat in controlled conditions(possibly I am wrong). I do know some use different parts of the brain, some use more, some use less. I do know millions of people can do things thousands can not. I do know handfuls of people can do things billions can not.
If we are connected to all the stuff that makes everything I do not see why it should be deemed impossible for the right person after research/study/training to be able to some how manipulate this stuff. Mind you I am not speaking about prayer or wishful thinking.
Quantum Physics dismantles the notion of commonsense doesn't it? With this understanding I do not understand why my view is off the mark? AAAAAAAAAAAAA!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 12:48 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 2:03 PM Purpledbear has replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 07-01-2009 2:12 PM Purpledbear has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2009 2:14 PM Purpledbear has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 12 of 24 (513802)
07-01-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Perdition
07-01-2009 2:03 PM


Re: Strange stuff
I thank all for comments. I breezed through Green's comments and did not initially understand them. I will post this then read what Green said 3 more times and let them sink in. Green, I do apologize if your comments address my 'concern'(questions) here and apologize for taking up space in a thread.
quote:
Electrons are also not conscious and so can have no awareness of anything, certainly not that they're being watched. A more accurate way of describing what happens (but not the only one) would be to say that the electron's wave function collapses when it interacts with its environment. In other words, when the slits aren't being observed then there is insufficient information to establish which slit it passed through and the result is an intereference pattern. And when the slits are being observed, then the act of observation is equivalent to the electron interacting with its environment, and the knowledge about which slit it passed through causes the interference pattern to disappear.
I have learned cartoons even when the portrayed scientist appears to be one of authority he is just acting.
An electron has the ability to continue or to collapse a wave function. Information on how to collapse or continue as a wave function is packaged in the electron. Because of the law it is necessary for the electron to access this information to "shape-shift" during interaction. However, the decision of the electron to collapse or continue it's wave function is not it's own. It is just following the direction of the law. The electron simply follows a very fundamental and demonstrated law that says do X during interaction and Y when not interacting.
Yes, yes I know awareness, acceptance or recognition of a law is not mandatory for the law to have influence.
(Some re-hash contained below)
However, for a law to be followed which demands a unique reaction under different circumstances(interaction/noninteraction) that require the law abiding electron to access information contained within that describes the process it must follow to collapse or continue wave with impeccable and consistent uniformity. This process(instructions inside) are followed with precision. To violate the law, not access the internal instructions, deviate from the shape shifting process the electron might not react different during interaction/non-interaction as the law demands. Violation is not allowed because it would lead to the largest catastrophe the universe has known.... Isn't awareness/acceptance/understanding or commitment implied by the electron of some type or scale necessary.
I know the short answer in, "NO!" But how do you know?
I have highlighted why I believe. I am not being sarcastic I guess it is what it is. I just need to accept what you tell me.
**It seems the method in which electrons follow the law is more complicated or as complicated as the processes which allow us humans to recognize interaction. The reasons humans obey laws with impeccable consistent & uniformity is because on some level we recognize, accept, are compelled to or are aware of the law which we knowing interact with.
I am not beating around the Bush to get to the question, "Who is the law giver." I just do not understand why it is such a far leap to admit somehow these things are aware.
Shit! the more I try to teach myself about science I demonstrate to myself the less I actually know.
Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 2:03 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 5:33 PM Purpledbear has not replied
 Message 15 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 5:53 PM Purpledbear has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 14 of 24 (513807)
07-01-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by greentwiga
07-01-2009 4:38 PM


Re: Observations
quote:
Suppose you want to measure windspeed in a wind tunnel. You put in a device that measures wind speed. But the measurement you got isn't the true unimpeded windspeed. Your instrument added some resistance.
In this thread I have been told my initial assumption as based on the cartoon that was incorrect. The electron was not demonstrating awareness. Instead it was following a physical law which has it act different while interacting or not interacting. Well, that is what I thought. However, based on this analogy am I to assume that resistance added/no resistance added can be used instead? In the double slit experiment an electrons wave function does or does not collapse because of resistance added or taken away during measurement?
That makes me smile! Eureka! No shit! But, on a very small scale this is a much bigger 'reaction' taking place with the interaction of measurement. Wind might change direction when it hits your instrument, it might slow, it might burst out the other side. But what is happening here with the electron seems much more complicated and mysterious. Or is it that simple?
DAH?!?!
What kind of resistance does adding a tool intended to observe an electron add to an electron?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by greentwiga, posted 07-01-2009 4:38 PM greentwiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 07-01-2009 5:54 PM Purpledbear has replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 15 of 24 (513812)
07-01-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 5:24 PM


I got it!
The basketball acts differently during interaction with me - force applied. The basket ball acts differently when not interacting with me it is at rest. When I throw the ball at your head you are unable to duck in time ha! - resistance added. Because of this resistance added the air molecules in the basket ball might react differently when at rest or during interaction when force is added.
Therefore one can also assume the same is true when interaction/resistance is placed on an electron. The collapsing of a wave function is just a way an electron 'expressing' itself to such interaction/resistance. Just as excited bouncy air molecules in the basket ball might be their 'expression' of my hand bouncing the ball.
God, why didn't someone just tell me that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 5:24 PM Purpledbear has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by greentwiga, posted 07-01-2009 8:26 PM Purpledbear has replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 17 of 24 (513815)
07-01-2009 6:02 PM


If correct
So, in conclusion let me say if my previous statements were correct. I agree with the OP and understand building blocks of life lack awareness. And our ability to interact with them is just not possible. Just as ram can not 'compute' or interact with the harddrive until built into a computer on its own a building block of life can not be aware until a more complex creature has evolved.

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 18 of 24 (513817)
07-01-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by lyx2no
07-01-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Baseball Analogies
quote:
One determines the position of an electron by bouncing photons off of it. That's kind of like Nolan Ryan attempting to determine your location by throwing baseballs at you. I'm failry sure that would alter your behavior.
The video I watched implied, I thought, the measuring device being used was some sort of camera or similar device(high powered microscope). I believe I felt this way because their claim was when observed the electron reacted. My mind did not substitute the word measure for observe.
So, it is not the fact that the electrons are acting differently because of interaction/resistance or force that most find 'queer' We have known for years when some type of force is put on an object it will react. Rather it is the self expression, the way the electron reacts to the interaction that is queer.
Edited by Purpledbear, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 07-01-2009 5:54 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 07-01-2009 7:52 PM Purpledbear has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4771 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 21 of 24 (513831)
07-01-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by greentwiga
07-01-2009 8:26 PM


Re: I got it!
Taz did not like my analogy. I think I get it a little more now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by greentwiga, posted 07-01-2009 8:26 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by greentwiga, posted 07-01-2009 9:40 PM Purpledbear has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024