|
Post by enigma on Jul 16, 2012 14:48:13 GMT -5
I heard that there is a chance that while slamming these particles together these scientists could create a black hole. That might settle a few arguments......... "Scientists apparently create black hole. No further details available or anticipated."
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 16, 2012 14:59:06 GMT -5
I heard that there is a chance that while slamming these particles together these scientists could create a black hole. That might settle a few arguments......... "Scientists apparently create black hole. No further details available or anticipated." The black hole was actually already created, didn't you get the memo??.......folks just keep imagining there's something going on here inside the hole.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 20, 2012 9:04:35 GMT -5
I'm not the scientist you's guys are, though I have a passing familiarity with all this stuff, but I'm quite familiar with the "yes but" syndrome. Hehe. Seems to me the dilemma is analogous to the problem of self realization in that what is at stake is the objective foundation on which the entire exploration is based, similar to the threat that the seeker faces in the dissillution of that which apparently seeks. There's an interesting process in which the seeking energy itself acheives zero potential at the precise moment of realization, and so that point becomes theoretical and is never actually reached. The seeker never realizes it's illusory nature, and neither does the objective scientist, since they both vanish into a black hole at the event horizon of realization. The energy, therefore, is redirected to the "Yes, but....". I'd daresay that you've actually stated an allegory there that can be projected onto the compound metaphor of seeker/humanity, physicist/mind, double-slit experiment/awakening ... allegory is inherently different from analogy/metaphor, as the experience that you invite isn't necessarily completely intellectual. Looking at it with mind though, gotta say that you've pretty much nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2012 11:05:17 GMT -5
The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?" ;D And that is an expression of the "spiritual speculation" that I was referring to. It's a speculation that the Copenhagen crowd was notably silent about. The speculation has a sublime beauty to it, and personally I found it helpful in the progression, but eventually it became a hindrance.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 21, 2012 13:21:51 GMT -5
The observer is one-with what is observed, but the average physicist doesn't really know what that means. If we ask a dozen particle physicists what they are looking at in a cloud chamber, how many will answer, "Me?" ;D And that is an expression of the "spiritual speculation" that I was referring to. It's a speculation that the Copenhagen crowd was notably silent about. The speculation has a sublime beauty to it, and personally I found it helpful in the progression, but eventually it became a hindrance. Ha ha. Yer right. The best answer would be to point in silence at what is seen in the cloud chamber. That would indicate some understanding, eliminate speculation, and avoid the great mistake of opening one's mouth. ;D
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 24, 2012 0:45:32 GMT -5
Awareness is just like the God particle... We've discovered that it's here, we just don't know what the hell it is? Are you sure we've discovered that? Is it possible that you mistake your mind is awaring for the awareness is awaring? I wish more scientists can spend time thinking of the ultimate reality because I find scientists are smarter and tend to be more honest in investigating things. Most of spiritual seekers tend to do wishful thinking only. Spiritual people are sdo smart even they can't comprehend what they're talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 14:52:10 GMT -5
Awareness is just like the God particle... We've discovered that it's here, we just don't know what the hell it is? Are you sure we've discovered that? Is it possible that you mistake your mind is awaring for the awareness is awaring? I wish more scientists can spend time thinking of the ultimate reality because I find scientists are smarter and tend to be more honest in investigating things. Most of spiritual seekers tend to do wishful thinking only. Well anyone can discover for themselves if there is awareness or not. You don't have to take my word for it. If your not there before the thought, "Is it possible that you mistake your mind is awaring for the awareness is awaring?", then the thought wouldn't have been seen. And if your not there before the thought, "Most of spiritual seekers tend to do wishful thinking only.", how were you able to communicate it to this forum? There is awareness of 'wishful thinking', but can the mind that thinks wishfully be aware of awareness?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2012 20:47:52 GMT -5
Are you sure we've discovered that? Is it possible that you mistake your mind is awaring for the awareness is awaring? I wish more scientists can spend time thinking of the ultimate reality because I find scientists are smarter and tend to be more honest in investigating things. Most of spiritual seekers tend to do wishful thinking only. Spiritual people are sdo smart even they can't comprehend what they're talking about. That's why no one here wants to be spiritual, hehe. ;D
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 29, 2012 17:01:08 GMT -5
It takes something like 6 Tev to "create" a Higgs Boson (which is only possible at CERN, a 27 mile circumference proton accelerator/hadron collider). The HB only theoretically exists for a fraction of a nanosecond. What do we actually see? Well, we see blips on an oscilloscope or tracks in a cloud chamber, or exposures of photographic emulsions on glass, or whatever, but whatever we then think (imagine) we see is inferred (imagined) based upon our ideas (products of imagination) of the standard model (imagined) and mathematics that only a handful of people can understand. The whole enterprise is necessary and humorous. It begins with the idea that there are separately-existing things, and that one of those things is something called "matter." After we assume that something called 'matter" exists, we assume (imagine) that it must be composed of something. We then imagine what that something is, and begin to search for ideas (imagined) that will corroborate our ideas (products of imagination) of its somethingness. We build a lab, do experiments, and conclude that "particles," called "atoms," compose matter. We then do other experiments and find that whatever atoms are are complex (don't meet our expectations) and are imagined to be composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. We do other experiments, and these three elemetary imaginary particles seem to behave in ways much much stranger than our existing ideas. Pretty soon we have to theorize (imagine) the existence of mesons, ions, positrons, photons, pions, hadrons, quarks, and a whole host of other sub-subatomic particles that manifest strangeness, charm, spin, and numerous other abstract characteristics. We then imagine Higgs fields and various other forces that interact with all of these bizarre entities in an effort to imagine how particles can exhibit mass (another imagined aspect of isness). The story is quite amazing and has no end. When Son-of-CERN is built and Tev's ten times greater are created, the Higgs Boson will be found to be the manifestation of multiple megamorons related through complex arrays of semiphotospectroheliographical sporotiferous gentalic egglofrostigans. This will have serious spiritual implications, and was foreseen by Lewis Carrol (or someone) who wrote scrumdilicus willicus humongoulobilligus whirligigs whirligong spinneriferify elementalisticalationalogs. Or, it could be the result of an extra glass of Crane Lake Pinot Noir which only costs $5/bottle! Gotta love the idea of a God particle. ;D I don`t know about anyone else, but I`m taking the road less imagined, and screw all that particulating! Crane Lake Pinot Noir it is! Woohoo! Thanks for the tip! ;D Hola from Samaipata, Bolivia (great place to chill for cheap, take walks, cook your own chow,and watch the world go by(though expensive internet,but there are wi-fi places)! If you need a place to get away and be on your own,this would be a place I`d recommend (abooouut $500/month would be comfy). Heading back to the States soon! BTW, got my fellowship and will be living in South America next year. Imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 29, 2012 19:29:55 GMT -5
Cheers! I didn't have a Pinot Noir on hand tonight. Had to settle for a big Natural Lite beer. (tips glass in direction of SN in South America) ;D
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 30, 2012 17:02:15 GMT -5
Right back atchya with a Kohlberg table red, good sir ;D There appears to be lotsa terrestrial shadow boxing going on here as of late. Know any good bookies....I would like to place a few bets.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2012 22:23:40 GMT -5
Thanks farmer, that was fun to watch. Carl Sagan was the prophet who led me into seeking ... the great thing about seeking through science is that your awe comes from simply looking hard at what is -- albeit through the lens of models yes, no doubt ... but the mumbo-jumbo is all out in the open just challenging you to understand it. The Tuesday Science section of the NYT after the Higgs run at the collider had (on a disgraceful pg #2) an essay by a guy named Lawrence Krauss, author of a book entitled "Universe From Nothing" (and who recently put on a funny show with Colbert). In the essay he wrote: "Hidden in what seems like empty space -- indeed, like nothing, which is getting more interesting all the time -- are the very elements that allow for our existence."
O.k. ... maybe some here might bristle at the word "elements" ... it's a newspaper ... A book by Fritjof Capra first infected me with the meme that in abandoning the idea of a purely material entity as a building block without dropping the concept of the atom, physicists had to resort to a vocabulary that's gotten more and more nondual over time. He, like just about every other author I've read on this just replaces the collapse of the material assumption with an embrace of the spiritual speculation of "unity consciousness".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2012 20:39:40 GMT -5
(... and there's also some great opportunity for comedy what with a guys head exploding and the whole notion of getting excited over biological advantage ...)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 16, 2014 12:45:46 GMT -5
Now, to circle back around to this: It begins with the idea that there are separately-existing things, and that one of those things is something called "matter." After we assume that something called 'matter" exists, we assume (imagine) that it must be composed of something. We then imagine what that something is, and begin to search for ideas (imagined) that will corroborate our ideas (products of imagination) of its somethingness. We build a lab, do experiments, and conclude that "particles," called "atoms," compose matter. Forget the theories that sprang up around them for just a moment and just consider the implications of the double-slit experiment, first performed with light in 1895 and then finally, as expected, accomplished with electrons in 1973. There is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. One important aspect of this is that if the source is slowed down to one photon or electron per interval through the slits with no observation at the slits then the interference pattern still appears – this is the source of the surprising conclusion that an electron can be in two places at once, in that some of the electrons have to have gone through both slits for the pattern to form. It’s also important to stress that the information can be gathered in such a way as to not effect what’s being observed. Campbell makes that point in the video by singling out the case where the detectors are left on but no data is recorded. The singularity of this result is that there is an observed physical phenomenon that can’t be modeled solely by physical means. This breaks the materialist assumption. This breaks the premise laid out by your first two sentences ZD. What physicists did to stay in business from here was to redefine the concept of a “particle” to include the act of observation, and the wave-particle duality was introduced. In the entire history of sub-atomic particle physics, the results have been reported to the public in terms of the familiar atomic-building-block, foundational-material story, but in actuality, what’s being studied here isn’t a purely material phenomenon. Now the metaphysical implications of this are pretty heavy since physicists and chemists and presumably all other disciplines up along the physical scale of affairs model everything that makes up our bodies and what those bodies interact with as being made up in turn of ever more complex aggregations of atoms. Newton made the assumption that we were individual, separate points of consciousness who shared a common reality outside of ourselves, and as a deeply religious man, further assumed that a omnipotent God had set things in motion and somehow was in control of that reality. This might sound like familiar ground around here, but since aggregations of atoms can’t be defined independent of observation, the whole bedrock idea of an independent reality outside of ourselves was blown away by the result of the double-slit experiment. One obvious shift in outlook that followed for many was to conclude that since we seem to be able to agree amongst ourselves on certain physical observations then it follows that if there is no external reality shared out among multiple individualized points of consciousness then perhaps there is instead a singular shared consciousness. The idea is that there aren’t many observers sharing an externally provided reality, there’s only one observer that effectively creates that reality. But how can we speculate based on a system that breaks it’s own foundational assumption? They started with the idea that were all made of stuff, and that if we dug deep enough, peered at smaller and smaller scales, that we’d be able to define what that stuff was. That’s the material assumption. Once they got good enough toys, they found out that no, there is no purely-material atom, atom’s can only be defined in terms of a non-material parameter. The experiment shouldn’t be taken out of context. It was the result of a 400 year search for what we were made of. In the end the search itself had to change as we found that what we’re made of isn’t something that can be defined externally to ourselves. The experiment breaks the materialist assumption. Replacing that with the spiritualist speculation is no better than ignoring the broken materialist assumption. It might seem a bit silly to revisit this so long after the fact, but I have pointed a few others back to it since I wrote it and there's one specific point that I'd like to revisit: there is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. Tom actually had to revisit this point of his presentation as described here. This doesn't mean that the core idea of the essay, the collapse of the material assumption, is no longer operative, it just means that explaining it becomes a bit more involved, a bit more technical, and involves a bit more conceptual structure. Picture a gun that fires electrons at a screen. The bottom line on the results of the double-slit experiment is that the electron has no certain form in the interval between leaving the gun and hitting the screen unless an observation is made along the way. This is stated succinctly by saying that the electron has no material existence independent of the observation of it. There are several ways to interpret this result. The interpretation that I'm advocating in the essay is based on the obvious point that the entire science of Physics is based on the assumption of an objective material reality. It's not the advocacy of any specific belief, but a description of moving from the presence of belief to an absence of belief -- the science of Physics, in the final analysis, simply contradicts the initial assumptions which underlie it. Special thanks to Tzu, as it was this debate that caused me to revisit this dialog -- I'd wanted to refer to the specific point that Tom had backtracked from and in looking for an outside source to cite to for that point came upon his correction. It's more difficult to explain the result without the idea that turning the power off at the detectors changes the pattern, but the point about the dependence on the physical result to the act of observation remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2014 0:58:06 GMT -5
Now, to circle back around to this: Forget the theories that sprang up around them for just a moment and just consider the implications of the double-slit experiment, first performed with light in 1895 and then finally, as expected, accomplished with electrons in 1973. There is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. One important aspect of this is that if the source is slowed down to one photon or electron per interval through the slits with no observation at the slits then the interference pattern still appears – this is the source of the surprising conclusion that an electron can be in two places at once, in that some of the electrons have to have gone through both slits for the pattern to form. It’s also important to stress that the information can be gathered in such a way as to not effect what’s being observed. Campbell makes that point in the video by singling out the case where the detectors are left on but no data is recorded. The singularity of this result is that there is an observed physical phenomenon that can’t be modeled solely by physical means. This breaks the materialist assumption. This breaks the premise laid out by your first two sentences ZD. What physicists did to stay in business from here was to redefine the concept of a “particle” to include the act of observation, and the wave-particle duality was introduced. In the entire history of sub-atomic particle physics, the results have been reported to the public in terms of the familiar atomic-building-block, foundational-material story, but in actuality, what’s being studied here isn’t a purely material phenomenon. Now the metaphysical implications of this are pretty heavy since physicists and chemists and presumably all other disciplines up along the physical scale of affairs model everything that makes up our bodies and what those bodies interact with as being made up in turn of ever more complex aggregations of atoms. Newton made the assumption that we were individual, separate points of consciousness who shared a common reality outside of ourselves, and as a deeply religious man, further assumed that a omnipotent God had set things in motion and somehow was in control of that reality. This might sound like familiar ground around here, but since aggregations of atoms can’t be defined independent of observation, the whole bedrock idea of an independent reality outside of ourselves was blown away by the result of the double-slit experiment. One obvious shift in outlook that followed for many was to conclude that since we seem to be able to agree amongst ourselves on certain physical observations then it follows that if there is no external reality shared out among multiple individualized points of consciousness then perhaps there is instead a singular shared consciousness. The idea is that there aren’t many observers sharing an externally provided reality, there’s only one observer that effectively creates that reality. But how can we speculate based on a system that breaks it’s own foundational assumption? They started with the idea that were all made of stuff, and that if we dug deep enough, peered at smaller and smaller scales, that we’d be able to define what that stuff was. That’s the material assumption. Once they got good enough toys, they found out that no, there is no purely-material atom, atom’s can only be defined in terms of a non-material parameter. The experiment shouldn’t be taken out of context. It was the result of a 400 year search for what we were made of. In the end the search itself had to change as we found that what we’re made of isn’t something that can be defined externally to ourselves. The experiment breaks the materialist assumption. Replacing that with the spiritualist speculation is no better than ignoring the broken materialist assumption. It might seem a bit silly to revisit this so long after the fact, but I have pointed a few others back to it since I wrote it and there's one specific point that I'd like to revisit: there is one particular facet of this result, best presented by this guy, that render it singular: whether or not a wave or a scatter pattern is observed on the screen depends on whether or not information is gathered at the slits as to the path traveled to the screen. Tom actually had to revisit this point of his presentation as described here. This doesn't mean that the core idea of the essay, the collapse of the material assumption, is no longer operative, it just means that explaining it becomes a bit more involved, a bit more technical, and involves a bit more conceptual structure. Picture a gun that fires electrons at a screen. The bottom line on the results of the double-slit experiment is that the electron has no certain form in the interval between leaving the gun and hitting the screen unless an observation is made along the way. This is stated succinctly by saying that the electron has no material existence independent of the observation of it. There are several ways to interpret this result. The interpretation that I'm advocating in the essay is based on the obvious point that the entire science of Physics is based on the assumption of an objective material reality. It's not the advocacy of any specific belief, but a description of moving from the presence of belief to an absence of belief -- the science of Physics, in the final analysis, simply contradicts the initial assumptions which underlie it. Special thanks to Tzu, as it was this debate that caused me to revisit this dialog -- I'd wanted to refer to the specific point that Tom had backtracked from and in looking for an outside source to cite to for that point came upon his correction. It's more difficult to explain the result without the idea that turning the power off at the detectors changes the pattern, but the point about the dependence on the physical result to the act of observation remains the same. I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious.
|
|