How to spot quantum quackery

[Hash Zeppelin]

^here is a different way of thinking of matter and consciousness, and I raise some more questions for you.

Ok so humans evolved from lesser forms of life all the way back to viruses and the most basic organisms made up just of amino acids, proteins, and water. these basic ingredients some how came together to form life. but what sparked it? many scientist say that electricity was the final ingredient, but who really knows. maybe there is a lot more to it than we think. maybe electricity, gravity, magnetism, and the heat all play a part too?

Well the next question is what did mater evolve from? was it consciousness, or was matter first, or were they simultaneous? doesn't really matter which came first, the point is everything evolves from something, why is matter or consciousness an exception?

here is another question. why does every single living thing on the planet respond, and connect to music? higher forms of life even connect to each other though music. I think Music and consciousness exist on the same eternal wave length, and matter is what it embodies. just as life must be embodied by matter to be its own separate entity, music must be embodied by matter by vibrating through it. Dark matter behaves in this way too.

Is there a universal consciousness? I think there is. Ants are all separate living entities, yet operate under one mind genetically connected though the queen. if the queen dies they all die.

When I thought about this long enough I started to think that life is just consciousness's way of manipulating matter.

 

[JWP]

I have no answers, only more questions..

Its my personal theory/hope that when we pass and our soul/consciousness is released from its bond with matter that we link up with or realize we are part of a greater consciousness/God and all the answers to our questions are revealed to us.

Here is an analogy for you lol
We are like the trichomes and God is like the whole plant. One in the same!

Is such a strange statement to say that we may be God? We create matter with consciousness. The double slit experiment proves it!

I dont know what life is. Maybe simply a way for consciousness to reveal itself to itself?

 

[InvisibleEmpire]

I can bet that our human science will never know the absolute truth of where we came from and the only truth will come from the Creator. This is my personal belief, many don't follow God (or any God) but I truly believe that if we had all the answers, God would not be powerful enough for us...

 

[ibjamming]

Lol Sac, when I argue against religion, it is from the point of view that we need to stop enslaving weak minds into an organisation that controls what they think and their behaviours. Then every now and again I'm presented with something that makes me think we need to make a greater effort to gather them up and organise their thoughts and behaviours.
Clearly education is a better option, but it seems it quite often fails.

You don't REALLY want 9 billion people each with their OWN idea of morality...do you?

 

[GMT]

GMT, the double slit experiment shows that "matter" (in this case a single photon) deos indeed exist as both a particle and a wave

yes as I said

of endless possibilities.

well no, it cant for instance turn into a dog.

But the photon (matter) always exists as a wave (NOT matter) until conscious observation takes place.

no, conciousness has no bearing upon it.

As if the photon (matter) knows we are watching. Then when we are not watching the photon goes back to being a wave (non matter). Strange hay

no, it doesnt return to a wave, once its hit its target, its energy is transformed into heat radiation. Unless thats what you mean by returning to a wave.

This is what the double slit experiment proves.

I think weve covered that its not.

How could all the matter of the universe exist without consciousness?

conciousness has nothing to do with it, at the point of the big bang, matter and anti matter collided (releasing the radiation refered to as background radiation), fortunately there was slightly more matter than antimatter, and that matter slowly collided to form larger groups of matter.

This experiment proves that matter only manifests into physical reality with consciousness.

again, no it doesn't

At the time of the big bang consciousness must have been for all this matter to manifest into our physical universe.

nope
conciousness is the result of the existence of a brain, which is made of matter and the result of billions of years of evolution within the physical world.

What is this consciousness?

see above

Is it not proof of "God" or at least consciousness prior to matter.

no.

 

[GMT]

IB, no, since the meaning of the word morality is the laws of god, and a christian construct, I would like, since you asked, there to be no sense of morality at all. What I would like is for people to live ethical lives instead. And since ethics can be reasoned, it would bring about a reasonable way of life.

 

[ibjamming]

IB, no, since the meaning of the word morality is the laws of god, and a christian construct, I would like, since you asked, there to be no sense of morality at all. What I would like is for people to live ethical lives instead. And since ethics can be reasoned, it would bring about a reasonable way of life.

Hmmm...about the only thing I still remember from my ethics class was that if you REALLY truly believe your doing a noble thing...it's OK. Or was my professor out to lunch? I CAN reason just about any behavior.

What is ethical to one is criminal to another. Hell, look at the global warming thread, my vs sac's way of dealing with it. I'd let billions die for a better world, she would not hear of such a thing. She'd rather see everyone suffer so everyone can "live".

I'm a bigger fan or morals...set standards of conduct. Why? Because I don't trust individuals to make the "right" choices.

 

[Honkytonk]

I'm a bigger fan or morals...set standards of conduct. Why? Because I don't trust individuals to make the "right" choices.

So you don't trust yourself?
But rather trust what the con-men of organized religion or any other organization for that matter tell you to?

 

[CrumpleZone]

One day during a particularly enjoyable mountain bike ride I realized, that just maybe, the reason for being put on the planet as a conscious entity could be simply to bear witness to the incredible beauty of the universe.

Could it be that consciousness is one of God's (who or whatever that is) ways of experiencing creation? Of experiencing It's Self? If so, does it matter?

 

[ibjamming]

So you don't trust yourself?
But rather trust what the con-men of organized religion or any other organization for that matter tell you to?

Oh no...I trust myself just fine...it's everyone else...all the rest looking out for their own best interests that I don't trust. I don't trust you.

Actually, it's how I already live...I decide right and wrong. If there's a law or not is way down my list of why not to do something. Because I know that a bunch of con-men wrote those laws.

 

[GMT]

Hey IB, well to take an extreme example, hitler thought what he was doing was for a brighter future for his nation, but was it really ethical? I'm afraid I dissagree with your lecturer on ethics there. Take Jesus for example, he was an ethical guy, but didn't have christianity to give him a morality. He still said (if we are to believe what we are told) that we should treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. Now there is an example of true ethics. I dont think you can compare ethics with laws, they are entirely different things. Morals are laws, they are unreasoned orders to be followed, ethics are justified actions that don't cause harm to others. You can't ethically justify murder, however if it is necessary to take out a terrorist (for example) with his finger on a trigger that will kill many, then that is ethically justifiable. Ethics is ultimately a way of creating a non harmfull utillitarianism. But you are right in that where it falls down is that to make it work people need the will, the education and the intellect to form an agreement on a code of ethics that is workable. And sadly, it seems that in a great many cases, one or more of those requirements aren't met.

 

[Honkytonk]

I'm a bigger fan or morals...set standards of conduct. Why? Because I don't trust individuals to make the "right" choices.

Actually, it's how I already live...I decide right and wrong. If there's a law or not is way down my list of why not to do something. Because I know that a bunch of con-men wrote those laws.

So, morals and standards of conduct (laws) are also for everyone else but you to follow?
You kinda lost me there.

 

[ibjamming]

Hey IB, well to take an extreme example, hitler thought what he was doing was for a brighter future for his nation, but was it really ethical? I'm afraid I dissagree with your lecturer on ethics there. Take Jesus for example, he was an ethical guy, but didn't have christianity to give him a morality. He still said (if we are to believe what we are told) that we should treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated. Now there is an example of true ethics. I dont think you can compare ethics with laws, they are entirely different things. Morals are laws, they are unreasoned orders to be followed, ethics are justified actions that don't cause harm to others. You can't ethically justify murder, however if it is necessary to take out a terrorist (for example) with his finger on a trigger that will kill many, then that is ethically justifiable. Ethics is ultimately a way of creating a non harmfull utillitarianism. But you are right in that where it falls down is that to make it work people need the will, the education and the intellect to form an agreement on a code of ethics that is workable. And sadly, it seems that in a great many cases, one or more of those requirements aren't met.

OK...I'll trust you...you can make your own rules too.

Who knows...really. Who knows what the world would have become if Hitler had won. Maybe the pinnacle of humankind...maybe not. How CAN we judge? We don't know the the outcome if the other path was followed. A vulgar example for sure, but good enough to make the point.

Sayings of Jesus just keep on coming. From not a word to quite a few before Paul get's finished with him. More of his saying are added throughout history...seeming just when needed?

Are morals "unreasoned"? If you made your golden rule the only moral...I'd think you'd have a nice place to live. In fact, I'll take that over the commandments, it fits my personality better. Sure...the crap that men add to it screw it all up. It appears some are unreasoned, but there is usually some reason under there somewhere...usually a profit or power thing.

I'll answer the last part below.

So, morals and standards of conduct (laws) are also for everyone else but you to follow?
I kinda lost you there.

MOST people need rules. Wouldn't you agree? Would you trust everyone with the power of deciding what they will and won't do? Right there on the spot?

Granted, we do that now...but there is that nagging...it's against the law, I'll be punished if I do it...as opposed to no laws and everyone takes every situation they enter into as a new experience, with new judgments as to what they will or won't do.

Nah...most people need rules...and many of those need something more than just the threat of punishment. The threat of something worse. Threats of hell? Religion gets a foothold so early in peoples lives that it really is ingrained deep into your person. Our society is falling apart because more and more don't get that religious indoctrination as babies/children. They have no "moral compass"...there is no denying it. The more America has moved from religion, the worse off we've become...it's a sad truth as I see it.

The thing is...I HATE religion, but I do believe in the "Christian morals". Some people don't figure out the golden rule on their own...ever...they need persuasion. I really don't want to live in a place where everyone has their own "ethics". Because they CAN justify murder...at least enough to pull the trigger...and if it's you getting shot, that's all that counts.

So, are peoples actions partly determined by quantum events? Is "chaos" a determinant in human actions? Maybe it's the basis of the "I don't know why I did it!" that most people have experienced?

Really...when you get down to it...the mind MUST be more than simple chemical reactions sprinkled with a bit of electrical activity.

Maybe our dreams are nothing more than random firings caused by quantum events...maybe our subconscious is really quantum events sending us in one or another direction of thought.

Fuck if I know...

 

[sac beh]

lol, yeah, Hitler was a terrible example to use with ibjamming. He was certain to find a way to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt...

 

[JWP]

well no, it cant for instance turn into a dog.

Endless possabilities, in releation to the photons possition

no, conciousness has no bearing upon it.

I disagree. "We are looking. Look the photons are in a fixed position" "We are not looking. The photons are everywhere"

no, it doesnt return to a wave, once its hit its target, its energy is transformed into heat radiation. Unless thats what you mean by returning to a wave.

I agree but each NEW photon that is fired hits the target in wave formation without conscious observation.

conciousness has nothing to do with it, at the point of the big bang, matter and anti matter collided (releasing the radiation refered to as background radiation), fortunately there was slightly more matter than antimatter, and that matter slowly collided to form larger groups of matter.

conciousness has everything to do with it. no conciousness = wave (non matter)
conciousness = particle (matter)

 

[Ca$h]

Isn't the double slit experiment by Fred Alan Wolfe? yes it is...

email him with your arguments regarding that and post them up. this thread is 10x the train wreck I imagined it would be...

 

[GMT]

JWP, I see where you are getting confused now. The single/double slit experiment as it may be better to call it, does not show that when no one is watching a wave interference pattern is observed, if that was the case, how would we know? As it would never be observed. What it shows is that when a single photon is fired through a single slit, a single point of impact is recorded. Yet when a single photon is fired at 2 slits, we see an interference pattern emerge. We are observing both experiments, not just one. It doesn't change its behaviour depending upon whether it is observed or not, but rather depending upon the number of possible paths it can travel.

The results are actually pretty complicated, its easier to watch a youtube video on the subject to be honest as I've over simplified that, but its the simplest way to explain the experiment and the results found and to explain where the confusion is coming into it.

 

[JWP]

The single/double slit experiment as it may be better to call it, does not show that when no one is watching a wave interference pattern is observed, if that was the case, how would we know?

We know because the wave pattern is left behind after the fact as evidence.

I agree, for anyone interested watch a vid.

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

My kids like this one =)

 

[GMT]

lol, that cartoon is meant for children and should not be taken literally. It used general language that kids can understand without going into the technical details.

When an electron or a photon or anything that is small enough to act in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics, is measured at a single point, it has a physical being. Now whether that point is on a plate behind a single slit, double slit, tripple slit whatever, it has physical properties. If that point is within one of the slits, it has a physical being. Whenever the paths of matter collide, they behave as matter pure and simple. The "act of observation" is not a guy sitting there watching electrons passing through the slit as that video would have you believe, represented by the big eye on a stick, the stuff that is being measured or "watched" is far too small and far too fast. What is happening is that matter is reacting with matter. So whenever that happens, even things small enough to act in accordance with quantum mechanics, will behave as physical matter. The wave function is merely a wierdness that is associated with the path of travel, not its own property of existence at any given point along its path of travel. The electron is not turning into a wave and back into something physical, it is always something physical, but it travels along every possible path it can. It can therefore interfere with its own journey which generates an interference pattern under certain circumstances.

 

[Ca$h]

lol, that cartoon is meant for children and should not be taken literally. It used general language that kids can understand without going into the technical details.

When an electron or a photon or anything that is small enough to act in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics, is measured at a single point, it has a physical being. Now whether that point is on a plate behind a single slit, double slit, tripple slit whatever, it has physical properties. If that point is within one of the slits, it has a physical being. Whenever the paths of matter collide, they behave as matter pure and simple. The "act of observation" is not a guy sitting there watching electrons passing through the slit as that video would have you believe, represented by the big eye on a stick, the stuff that is being measured or "watched" is far too small and far too fast. What is happening is that matter is reacting with matter. So whenever that happens, even things small enough to act in accordance with quantum mechanics, will behave as physical matter. The wave function is merely a wierdness that is associated with the path of travel, not its own property of existence at any given point along its path of travel. The electron is not turning into a wave and back into something physical, it is always something physical, but it travels along every possible path it can. It can therefore interfere with its own journey which generates an interference pattern under certain circumstances.

I sent him an Email with your post in it and he replied with this the same day I sent to him (10/08)

I am happy to explain the 2-slit experiment very thoroughly to you. Here is the complete double slit explanation with some simple math concepts but no actual math calculations. If you understand this it will clear up the observer effect in quantum physics and what physicists actually compute in their theories when doing quantum physics. For more in quantum physics read my books Taking the Quantum Leap and Parallel Universes and soon to be released in the Spring 2011, Time-loops and Space-twists: How God created the universe.

You need one outstanding quantum physics math fact. Possibilities in quantum physics are complex numbers. To determine the probability of an event with possibility A, you need to multiply this possibility A by its complex conjugate A*. Together you get |A|^2 which makes up the probability for the event. For more on this see any of my latest books.

Most explanations of the 2-slit experiment fail to go into the interaction of a measuring device with the particle before it arrives at the screen. Suppose a camera is positioned outside of the slits.

Let me try to explain this according to quantum physics.

Although it appears to not make sense, it is ultimately not the camera that makes the big change--it is the observer that does it. However having the camera in the experiment does make a change. Let me use a shorthand to describe this. Let E be the electron, (so E1 means electron at slit 1, and so on), S1 slit 1, S2 slit 2, and C the camera. Now when the camera is off or not interacting with the slits we have the following situation.

The quantum physics state of the whole system S is (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C. The two possibilities E1×S1 and E2×S2 interfere with each other--they add up their states. This is known as the superposition principle of quantum physics.

The camera C does not affect each possibility separately even though it multiplies their sum. This is just like classical physics where you compute the probability of throwing a dice to get a six and flipping a coin to get heads. You simply multiply the probabilities 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/12. What happens to the die is independent of the coin.

When the observer comes into the picture he sees the whole quantum physics (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C state and hence sees the interference pattern after many electrons hit the screen. Since C didn't interact with either slit that pattern is the same as if the camera were not there at all.

Now turn the camera on. If the camera captures a picture, its state will change according to either possibility C1 or C2 where C1 means it went through slit-1 and C2 means it went through slit-2. The whole system is now (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2).

Now there are two possibilities (I) and (II):

(I) The observer doesn't look at the picture in the camera. The interference has been affected by the camera being in place and the camera's state has changed. If the observer were to observe this whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2), and not look to see what the camera recorded, he still wouldn't know which slit the electron went through and yet the whole pattern on the screen would change due to the presence of the active camera. He would only know that something changed in the experiment if he was capable of knowing anything at all about this..

According to quantum physics the probability for having the camera on and the observer not looking at its result is
(E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) x (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2)* [* means complex-conjugate]. This gives the probability to be
|(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 + rapid interference terms. The interference terms are nearly zero due to the complexity of having many particles in the film of the camera and the result seems just about random. This would appear on the screen as a jiggle of overlapping single slit possibilities with little interference.

(II) The observer does look at the picture in the camera. Since he looks at the camera he will see either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2 and depending on which camera state he observes, he will "see" a slightly different result on the screen for where the electron went. If he would see C1, it went through slit-1, if he would see C2 it went through slit-2 and there is no interference any more. The observed pattern, either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2, would be slightly different than the whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) although this would be very hard to detect.

Here is the reason it is hard to detect. In (II) while the camera is recording the result yielding (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) over and over again and he looks at the camera each time and then waits for a lot of looked at electrons to arrive on the screen, he would find an overlap of probabilities for each result. It's like asking for the total probability of finding a single die with either the number 2 or the number 3 showing. You add the separate probabilities of 1/6 + 1/6.= 1/3. So if you were to look at each camera after the camera took its picture each time you would get the probability to be
|(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 without the interference terms. This is very much like the result in (I) where the result is the same except for the rapid interference terms that are there from not looking at the camera. Since they are rapid they average out to a fuzzy result.

So ultimately the observer causes the change in the pattern although in this case the human observer plays a small role. This doesn't necessarily mean that putting the camera in place and turning it on doesn't change things--it does. This state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) (camera on) is not the same as (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C (camera off).

It makes little difference to do it this way or use two cameras or even just one camera. If the single camera is on behind slit 1, e.g., and nothing is recorded, the electron did not go through that slit and the observation that it did not also destroys the interference pattern because we then know it went through slit 2 since we don't see it go through slit 1. That is (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2) becomes either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2 thus also destroying the pattern. For more you might enjoy reading about quantum physics in several books listed on my website such as Taking the Quantum Leap, Parallel Universes, The Yoga of Time Travel, and others. I would also suggest you read the Feynman lectures vol. 3.

In summary the observer destroys the interference between the possibilities. The camera doesn't. Note in particular even the observation that an electron did not go thorugh a slit produces the same result as observing that it did.

For more on this See for examples:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00713.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment


Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
mailto:fred@fredalanwolf.com
web page: http://www.fredalanwolf.com
Blog page: http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/