Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:57 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,200 Year: 15,236/19,786 Month: 1,959/3,058 Week: 333/404 Day: 51/96 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Does What the Bleep Do We Know have any close cousins?
WaveDancer
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 37
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 09-14-2008


Message 1 of 24 (511680)
06-11-2009 6:45 AM


Just wondering how many people out there have come across cosmology and the like being portrayed as fact or fact worthy when it is actually complete pseudo.

I have an interest in cosmology but I am hardly an expert and I have been fooled twice by reptiable looking sites into thinking what they where saying was fact when it was actually fiction or mostly fiction.

These people fooled me (for a while) into thinking what they where saying was fact. http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/ I think some of it is actual cosmology but it is mixed up in gibberish.

And the movie which the website goes on about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU

I started waking up to the BS when they started going on about snow flakes or water droplets changing shape if you prayed near them or wished them to do it. This is the blokes name “Dr. Masaru Emoto” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

There was also this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=related

And his website http://www.tenthdimension.com/

This man has also written a book and in that video claimed to show how the dimensions relate to each other. I am told that the clips is complete garbage. Mind you it has hundreds of thousands of views so I must not have been the only one fooled.

I must admit it does annoy me when I watch things which at first appear to be legitimate but then only find that it is nothing but lies.

Anybody else know of sites/books or movie which create pseudo-cosmolgy? And please no links to the Bible ;).

Edited by Admin, : Change title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Son Goku, posted 06-12-2009 7:44 PM WaveDancer has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2 of 24 (511700)
06-11-2009 9:10 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1149
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 3 of 24 (511927)
06-12-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WaveDancer
06-11-2009 6:45 AM


Hey WaveDancer,

Yes "What the Bleep do we know" has some pretty close cousins. First of all "What the Bleep" itself is atrociously awful and not a single word of it has any realistic content regarding quantum mechanics.

The site http://www.tenthdimension.com/ is also complete unmitigated nonsense. It is essentially just a fictional universe invented by the author, not really connected to anything experimentally verifiable or with preexisting physical theories.

However these two sources are the biggest culprits of misinformation in the internet age. I could tell you all the other sources of misinformation, but instead how about the sources of actual information.

For reliable sources, Wikipedia is pretty good although probably incomprehensible. Their articles are usually too mathematical.
The good sources for physics are really what I would call "non-technical, non-casual science". A perfect example is "The Second Creation" by Charles Crease and Robert Mann.* Also the books by Brian Greene and Kip Thorne's "Black Holes, Wormholes and Time Machines".

*I've recommended this book so many times, I just want to emphasise that I am not affiliated with the authors. It is simple that the modern physics community sees this as the best book for the average person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by WaveDancer, posted 06-11-2009 6:45 AM WaveDancer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 12:52 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 3001 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 yet responded

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

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 5 of 24 (513752)
07-01-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 12:52 AM


Re: 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'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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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?

I don't know what you mean here. Relevance is defined by the observer, not the observee...

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.

If you were to somehow entangle, in the quantum sense, one of your neurons with another partcile, and I'm not even sure this is feasible, since neurons are actually quite big at the quantum level, you might be able to affect that particle to some extent, but as far as affecting something that just happens to be in the area without actually using a known force generator of some sort (electrical, magnetic, etc) seems very far-fetched and New Age mumbo-jumbo-y to me.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 12:52 AM Purpledbear has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 1:30 PM Perdition has responded

    
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 3001 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 responded

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

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 7 of 24 (513767)
07-01-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Strange stuff
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle & Schrodinger's Cat to begin my journey?

I think those would be very good places to start a layman's introduction to Quantum Mechanics.

So it is your opinion the movie is just presenting material to fit their 'means'?

I haven't seen the movie, but based on what other people have said, it seems to me that the movie is just presenting material to fit their agenda/bias, rather than figuring out the truth and presenting that.

The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing

Cave Diver or SonGoku might be better resources, but as far as I know, collapsing the wave function is more a mathematical thing. Quantum Mechanics doesn't work in a direct cause/effect way. When something happens, there is a bell curve of probability as to what the effect will be. Most particles will react within the large part of the bell, but there will be stragglers at either end, which is how you get quantum tunneling and the like. When we actually observe how the particle reacted, we collapse the wave function (bell curve) and now know how it reacted to a greater degree.

For example, we have particles in containment of some sort. For any particular particle, we don't know where it is, but there is a non-zero chance that one of those particles will end up outside the containment. We set up detectors around the conatainment, and lo and behold, we get a hit. The location wave function of that particle, with a bell curve representing possible locations, has now collapsed and the location is known to be where the detector found it.

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?

No. Most things are "connected" through the maxwell fields and gravity (on a quantum level) and the reactions through EM fields and gravity propagate at the speed of light. Quantum Entanglement is a very strange phenomenon which requires very specific circumstances under which to occur. Any, every day particle won't be quantumly entangled with anything, except for maybe an electron and the atom its a part of.

So I(the observer) have the ability to somehow impact the speed of light or have the ability to make it unique to me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Relevance is the pertinance, germainness, applicability of something. So, if we're trying to figure out the spedd of a car, the color of that car is not a relevant observation as it has nothing to do with the pseed of the car (unless it were traveling at some significant fraction of ths peed of light). The speed of light is an objective measurement, it doesn't care who you are or what you want, it will travel at the same speed it always travels at.

IF 2 observers view light from 2 different perspectives and they obtain 2 different measurements both are correct?!?!!!?

If they get two different measurments, at least one has faulty equipment, the readings should be the same.

But, haven't some been able to demonstrate they can control their heartbeat in controlled conditions(possibly I am wrong).

Anyone can make their heart speed up or slow down...all you need to do is calm/meditate or get anxious over something. I have a suspicion your heart beat is a little sped up at the moment, as a matter of fact.

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.

Because you can't change something unless you have something with which to interact with it. If a pitcher throws a ball at you, you can't change it's direction unless you hit it with something else. Likewise, you can't make a photon move unless you hit it with something else (another photon or an electron, etc) You don't have control over any electrons outside of your body, unless you are using a machine. So, all by your lonesome, you can't affect a photon by will alone.

Quantum Physics dismantles the notion of commonsense doesn't it?
It does indeed. In fact, it has taken down even great minds, such as Einstein, so the fact that you (and I) can't understand it very well is nothing to be disparaged. In fact, it has been said that anyone who claims to understand it is lying or wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 1:30 PM Purpledbear has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 5:24 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 23 by Son Goku, posted 07-12-2009 1:28 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 24 (513768)
07-01-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Strange stuff
It sounds like you were getting it already, but if it helps, here's the way I see it.

Purpledbear writes:

The conclusion is all physicists agree that the electron was aware it was being watched (4:42).

The cartoon is probably great for kids but shouldn't be taken too literally. For example, when describing what happens when the 2-slit experiment is performed with a device to measure which slit the electron passes through the cartoon says, "The electron decided to act differently, as if it was aware it was begin watched." While the electron did behave differently, it was not conscious and did not make a decision. It was simply following the laws of physics.

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.

hen in the final seconds the cartoon doctor says, "The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing."

It isn't the observer that collapses the wave function. It's the mere act of interacting with its surroundings.

So it is your opinion the movie is just presenting material to fit their 'means'?

I don't know what Perdition would say, but I think it's a wonderful cartoon that clearly and in a very interesting way communicates mysterious quantum behavior for grade levels up to maybe 8th.

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

"Communicate" is the wrong term because quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate information. We have been able to establish that the state to which the wave functions collapse is determined for both particles at precisely the same instant in time regardless of separation distance, but this can't be used to communicate any information. For example, you can't take one of a pair of entangled particles and monitor when its wave function collapses so that you know when the other particle has been observed, because the first time your monitor looks at your entangled particle its wave function will collapse.

The speed of light as the maximum speed with which one part of the universe can affect any other part of universe is not violated by quantum entanglement, because there is no way to cause anything to actually happen at the other entangled particle. Their quantum states will remain balanced, for example have opposite spins, but which entangled particle gets which spin is random - it cannot be decided before making the observation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 1:30 PM Purpledbear has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 24 (513769)
07-01-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 1:30 PM


Observations
While waiting better answers from our resident physicists I'd like to make a comment of my own:

As I understand what I have read this idea of an "observation" implying an "observer" is a big misunderstanding. An observation is an interaction with something. It is the interaction which causes the quantum state to be determined. It doesn't require any "person" to be doing the "looking". Another particle can 'interact' and so 'observe' the state.

This is one (maybe the reason?) why the entanglement of things needed for quantum computing is so darned difficult to maintain. It isn't enough to have everyone in the room turn away and not peek. It is necessary that the entangled pair not interact with anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 1:30 PM Purpledbear has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by greentwiga, posted 07-01-2009 4:38 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Son Goku, posted 07-12-2009 1:55 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 10 of 24 (513789)
07-01-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
07-01-2009 2:14 PM


Re: Observations
The double slit experiment has some interesting effects. Einstein looked at them and refused to go where the ideas were leading, famously saying "God doesn't play dice with the universe. The Experiments take either a particle or light wave packet so lets use an electron. Shining a beam of electrons at a single slit produces a uniform spreading pattern. shining the beam at a double slit produces an interference pattern just like light does. So far, that means that one electron goes through one slit and another goes through the other slit and the electrons wave patterns either constructively add or destructively cancel each other. A sensor placed at one of the "dark" bands would not even register an electron.
So far, there is no real problem. Now, slow down the electrons so that only one electron per second is going through the either one slit or the other. Place one sensor behind each slit and they will register the occasional electron going through only one slit, but never both. Now remove the sensors, and the interference pattern reappears. The electron is now going through both slits at once. Einstein developed a thought experiment. A galaxy 10 billion light years away is sending light our way but it passes another galaxy 5 billion light years away that splits the light into two crescents, one on either side of the middle galaxy. This is like the two slits. Sensors aimed at either crescent will register photons, proving that the photon went around either the right side or the left side of the galaxy. Without the detectors, but with a plate to register interference, even if there is only one photon arriving per second, interference will occur, showing that the photon went around both sides of the galaxy at once. Thus, the method of detection forces the photon to go back 5 billion years to decide whether to go around one side or both sides of the galaxy. This has been called spooky action at a distance.
So far, though weird, this is known and OK. If I read the original post right, he was saying that this was communication or thought and a sign of intelligence. It is neither, but just a product of quantum mechanics and something that people deep into string theory are trying to make a better mathematical model for.

Oh, as a sidelight, I am starting a campaign to reunite Gondwanaland. Anyone want to join my cause?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2009 2:14 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 5:36 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1520 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 24 (513798)
07-01-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 12:52 AM


Re: Strange stuff
Purpledbear writes:

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.....


Not at all. In order to measure something, we have to have an instrument there. The instrument itself, then, acts as an interference to whatever it is we're measuring. Here is an example of what I mean.

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.

There's nothing magical about the phenomenon. If you observe something, you in effect interferes with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 12:52 AM Purpledbear has not yet responded

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 3001 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 responded

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

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 13 of 24 (513806)
07-01-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Strange stuff
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.

An electron isn't accessing some internal rules any more than a basketball is accessing some internal rule when it bounces off a backboard. It just reacts as the properties that make it up require it to react. What the double slit experiments, et. al. indicate is that the distinction we draw between a particle and a wave is not inherently there. The electron is at one and the same time a particle and a wave. We just see it as one or the other when the experiment is designed to detect one or the other.

For example, a picture of a bouncing basketball shows its color as orange. An audio tape of a bouncing basketball lets us hear the sound of the impact. It's not that our recording devices make the basket=ball choose between being orange or making a sound, it's doing both simultaneously, we're just measuring one or the other at a time.

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.

Human laws exist because we have an option of doing otherwise. We can choose to murder someone, so we have a law that says we shouldn't and proscribes a punishment if we do. Physical laws aren't the same. They're descriptions of how things behave, every time they're in a similar set of circumstances, they will follow the same "rules." Choice has no bearing on it.


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

    
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 3001 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 yet responded

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

    
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 3001 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 yet responded

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

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019