|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2018 1:51:20 GMT -5
An observer is the most primary element in physics since Einstein's relativity. In QM I think observation integral to field collapse. The paradigm has three basic elements a field, a collapse, an observation. The electron doesn't 'appear' anywhere unless there is an observation. The problem with mystics is they presume cause and say electrons appear because they are observed, but QM has no evidence of that, and indications are that electrons appear concurrently with observation, without any cause. As to what the observer is... there is no 'observer particle' so 'observation' is only a category of field collapse. It's incorrect to say 'an observer' causes the universe to exist. The universe has the inherent quality of 'observation'. What you've elucidated is a subtlety of the Copenhagen Interpretation that Heisenberg made quite clear in his stab at writing a philosophy book. It's completely unsatisfactory to anyone unwilling to consider a perspective that describes the whole, from the appearance of the perspective within that whole, that isn't separate from the whole, with no possibility of a perspective outside of the whole. The point that physical reality only takes shape on paper in the context of an observation is just another way of saying that there's no separating the observer and the observed in the definition of that reality. This still leaves the existential question -- as clearly, I am not you, and you are not me -- but deprives the questioner of the option of answering it in terms of an objective physical reality independent of his existence, because in the observation, there he is. Physicists always write the best philosophy, and the basic premise is we aren't describing a reality, but explain our experience of the universe. Pilgrims quoted physicist seems to think that we are describing an actual thing, and not describing an experience of things, and even though many physicists seem to be that way persuaded, it actually contravenes the most fundamental founding philosophies of physics. The fundamental paradigm is basically, there is a universe which includes a questioner, and 'answers' are depend on the context of the question - that is, there are no 'actual answers' - just descriptions we use to understand our experience. The descriptions work in predicting outcomes, but their symbolic essence is completely removed from 'reality'. For example, we know Feynman's 'spinning arrows' tell us all about the behaviour of light, but light is in no way, and no one even assumes in the least, that light is 'actually' a bunch of spinning arrows. Bohr was onto it in the early days when he said the role of physics isn't find out how natures is; it only concerns what we can say about nature.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 5, 2019 12:58:42 GMT -5
Considered starting another thread, Quantum Mechanics and higher dimensions, but decided to continue here. The other day I was reading a book by psychotherapist/existential psychologist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl, and he supplied an analogy which I immediately adapted to quantum mechanics. You can look at some of the earlier posts for background, but briefly (or you can skip to paragraph 4). QM is the most successful theory ever in physics, it has never been shown to be wrong. What does his mean? It means physicists can do the math and make predictions, and about 30% of our economy has come directly from what we know about QM. But it also means in the words of Noble winner Richard Feynman, I think I can safely say nobody understands QM. What does this mean? It means the picture given by QM does not fit into the ~language~ of our everyday world. It means *things* (an electron is a thing) can be in two places at once, either time travel exists or there is reverse causality-but-more-specifically, determinism does not exist in the microworld, period, randomness reigns. Success in QM stands on the probability of numbers of processes (therein predictions possible), not on individual events (which are random).
If we take light as an example, a photon is a particle, but light can behave as either a particle or a wave (which is spread-out IOW not-a-particle). The double-slit experiment is the best example of the quantum dilemma of trying to make real-world sense of QM. The firing of particle-photons at a target gives a bullet-type pattern like you would get by firing a gun at a target. If you have one slit open in the experiment this is what you get, a bullet-like pattern. But if you open two slits and fire photons at them, even one photon at a time, at the target you get a diffraction pattern, or an interference pattern, like you get with wave phenomenon (IOW, not a bullet-like pattern). This shows the photons went through both slits, causing interference patterns where troughs or peaks of waves either line up or cancel each other out.
Now, the following is where the craziness of quantum phenomenon, and the gist of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM enters the picture. If you open both slits, but observe either one slit or the other (it doesn't matter if you observe the slit that the photon went through or the slit it didn't go through, that is really bizarre) you revert to getting a bullet-like pattern at the target. IOW, observing in and of itself, changes whether the photon goes through one slit or two slits. Physicists to this day still do not understand what is happening in the double-slit experiment. It seems as if observing in and of itself (and the observing can be done with a mechanical system, like a camera, and as simple as turning the camera on or off, that is, observing or not-observing) determines if the photon goes through one slit or both slits, that is, getting either a bullet-like pattern or a wave pattern.
Frankl gave an analogy of looking at an object in its own dimension or looking at it in a lower dimension. He took as example a cylinder. To fit our example let's say the cylinder, in and of itself, that is, as it is, represents the fifth dimension, let's call that the quantum realm. You know what a cylinder is, a can of soup is a cylinder. If you remove one dimension, bringing the cylinder to our 3D/4D dimension (3 dimensions of space, one of time), by casting a light onto the top of the cylinder, what we see is a circle, the shadow is a circle. However, if we cast a light perpendicular to the side of the cylinder, we see in our 3D/4D world, a rectangle-shadow. In 5D we have a cylinder, in 3D/4D we have, from the same object, either a shadow-circle or a shadow-rectangle. Now, if you want to you can sit with that a while...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, for 95+ years physicists have pondered how crazy the quantum world seems to be. How can light be both a particle and a wave? How can the simple act of observing change reality? How can the simple act of observing, form what is, determine what is? How can something be in two places at once? How can the causal classical everyday world be formed from a more-basic world that is random, that is not-causal?
I will add here something Einstein said near the end of his life. I have pondered most of my life on what light is, and I still do not know.
So, from our analogy, the actual quantum world exists in a higher dimension, and we do not really know or understand what that world is (like). In our analogy we ~can't see~ the cylinder. We do not really have actual access to that world, all we can do is perform experiments which give us "photographs", a snapshot in time. And it seems that our results from these experiments can only give a partial picture of the world as it is. If we do a certain kind of experiment (if we have a measuring device present at at least one slit) we get rectangles (bullet-type patterns) in our 3D/4D world, and if we do another kind of experiment (no observing at the slits) we get circles (wave patterns) in our 3D/4D world. So depending upon our experiment we either get rectangles (particles) or circles (waves).
So the quantum world is what it is, we don't change the quantum world via our experiments. We don't change the nature of the cylinder. Depending upon the type of experiment we do, we get either rectangles or circles. And there are other quantum properties too, for example spin. And properties are usually complementary, that is, they come in pairs (like rectangles and circles).
David Bohm developed a theory of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate world is the world of Wholeness (cylinders). The Explicate world is our experiential universe ("rectangles and circles"). So our analogy also explains entanglement. Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon understood and named by Schrodinger. Two particles having once interacted are forever connected to each other, even superseding the speed of light (Einstein called this spooky action at a distance). Bohm said the Implicate Order is a world of undivided wholeness, the world of the "cylinder". So in entanglement experiments, entangled pairs are formed. We could say this is like shinning a light down at a 45 degree angle at our soup can, from the upper side, and simultaneously shinning a light up at our soup can at 45 degrees, so we now, {seemingly}, have two particles (shadows), one (A) spin up and one (B) spin down. (You have a kind-of/(almost) rectangle with curved ends). Now, whatever you do to particle-shadow (A) has an instantaneous correspondence and seeming effect on particle-shadow (B), no matter if (A) is on one side of the galaxy and (B) is on the other side of the galaxy. (This correspondence has been experimentally verified in the laboratory, even superseding the speed of light).
But we could say that in the Implicate Order of Wholeness, these particles have never been actually separated, they still exist as the cylinder, One Whole, but in a higher dimension not directly accessible to us. So in quantum experiments we are not changing the "cylinder", we are not forming the world by observations, we are, by observation, conforming our world to one view, one snapshot, of the quantum world. (So goodbye Copenhagen). If you combined the circle, the rectangle and the rectangle-curved-at-both-ends, you might could ~see~ they all derived-from a cylinder, you might could visualize (abstract) the whole-cylinder, and "see" it exists in a higher dimension. Or you might could...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2019 16:34:53 GMT -5
Sorry, the proof of Bell's theorem foreclosed on the possibility of a hidden variable theory, and that's really all that you're speculating about here.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2019 11:35:22 GMT -5
Sorry, the proof of Bell's theorem foreclosed on the possibility of a hidden variable theory, and that's really all that you're speculating about here. I can only conclude one or a combination of the following: You did not read the post. You don't understand the meaning of hidden variables. You didn't get that cylinder is an analogy or don't understand the analogy. To be a variable the variable has to vary. Hidden variables deal with locality. (Meaning hidden variable proponents are looking for loopholes trying to hold on to determinism and locality. I'm not). I will bump the post and highlight what's pertinent (to this post), and explain the original post somewhat (meaning, there's more in it).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2019 12:01:10 GMT -5
.......bumped and highlighted for laughter........... Considered starting another thread, Quantum Mechanics and higher dimensions, but decided to continue here. The other day I was reading a book by psychotherapist/existential psychologist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl, and he supplied an analogy which I immediately adapted to quantum mechanics. You can look at some of the earlier posts for background, but briefly ( or you can skip to paragraph 4). QM is the most successful theory ever in physics, it has never been shown to be wrong. What does his mean? It means physicists can do the math and make predictions, and about 30% of our economy has come directly from what we know about QM. But it also means in the words of Noble winner Richard Feynman, I think I can safely say nobody understands QM. What does this mean? It means the picture given by QM does not fit into the ~language~ of our everyday world. It means *things* (an electron is a thing) can be in two places at once, either time travel exists or there is reverse causality-but-more-specifically, determinism does not exist in the microworld, period, randomness reigns. Success in QM stands on the probability of numbers of processes (therein predictions possible), not on individual events (which are random). If we take light as an example, a photon is a particle, but light can behave as either a particle or a wave (which is spread-out IOW not-a-particle). The double-slit experiment is the best example of the quantum dilemma of trying to make real-world sense of QM. The firing of particle-photons at a target gives a bullet-type pattern like you would get by firing a gun at a target. If you have one slit open in the experiment this is what you get, a bullet-like pattern. But if you open two slits and fire photons at them, even one photon at a time, at the target you get a diffraction pattern, or an interference pattern, like you get with wave phenomenon (IOW, not a bullet-like pattern). This shows the photons went through both slits, causing interference patterns where troughs or peaks of waves either line up or cancel each other out. Now, the following is where the craziness of quantum phenomenon, and the gist of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM enters the picture. If you open both slits, but observe either one slit or the other (it doesn't matter if you observe the slit that the photon went through or the slit it didn't go through, that is really bizarre) you revert to getting a bullet-like pattern at the target. IOW, observing in and of itself, changes whether the photon goes through one slit or two slits. Physicists to this day still do not understand what is happening in the double-slit experiment. It seems as if observing in and of itself (and the observing can be done with a mechanical system, like a camera, and as simple as turning the camera on or off, that is, observing or not-observing) determines if the photon goes through one slit or both slits, that is, getting either a bullet-like pattern or a wave pattern. Frankl gave an analogy of looking at an object in its own dimension or looking at it in a lower dimension. He took as example a cylinder. To fit our example let's say the cylinder, in and of itself, that is, as it is, represents the fifth dimension, let's call that the quantum realm. You know what a cylinder is, a can of soup is a cylinder. If you remove one dimension, bringing the cylinder to our 3D/4D dimension (3 dimensions of space, one of time), by casting a light onto the top of the cylinder, what we see is a circle, the shadow is a circle. However, if we cast a light perpendicular to the side of the cylinder, we see in our 3D/4D world, a rectangle-shadow. In 5D we have a cylinder, in 3D/4D we have, from the same object, either a shadow-circle or a shadow-rectangle. Now, if you want to you can sit with that a while... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, for 95+ years physicists have pondered how crazy the quantum world seems to be. How can light be both a particle and a wave? How can the simple act of observing change reality? How can the simple act of observing, form what is, determine what is? How can something be in two places at once? How can the causal classical everyday world be formed from a more-basic world that is random, that is not-causal? I will add here something Einstein said near the end of his life. I have pondered most of my life on what light is, and I still do not know. So, from our analogy, the actual quantum world exists in a higher dimension, and we do not really know or understand what that world is (like). In our analogy we ~ can't see~ the cylinder. We do not really have actual access to that world, all we can do is perform experiments which give us "photographs", a snapshot in time. And it seems that our results from these experiments can only give a partial picture of the world as it is. If we do a certain kind of experiment (if we have a measuring device present at at least one slit) we get rectangles (bullet-type patterns) in our 3D/4D world, and if we do another kind of experiment (no observing at the slits) we get circles (wave patterns) in our 3D/4D world. So depending upon our experiment we either get rectangles (particles) or circles (waves). So the quantum world is what it is, we don't change the quantum world via our experiments. We don't change the nature of the cylinder. Depending upon the type of experiment we do, we get either rectangles or circles. And there are other quantum properties too, for example spin. And properties are usually complementary, that is, they come in pairs (like rectangles and circles). David Bohm developed a theory of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate world is the world of Wholeness (cylinders). The Explicate world is our experiential universe ("rectangles and circles"). So our analogy also explains entanglement. Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon understood and named by Schrodinger. Two particles having once interacted are forever connected to each other, even superseding the speed of light (Einstein called this spooky action at a distance). Bohm said the Implicate Order is a world of undivided wholeness, the world of the "cylinder". So in entanglement experiments, entangled pairs are formed. We could say this is like shinning a light down at a 45 degree angle at our soup can, from the upper side, and simultaneously shinning a light up at our soup can at 45 degrees, so we now, {seemingly}, have two particles (shadows), one (A) spin up and one (B) spin down. (You have a kind-of/(almost) rectangle with curved ends). Now, whatever you do to particle-shadow (A) has an instantaneous correspondence and seeming effect on particle-shadow (B), no matter if (A) is on one side of the galaxy and (B) is on the other side of the galaxy. (This correspondence has been experimentally verified in the laboratory, even superseding the speed of light). But we could say that in the Implicate Order of Wholeness, these particles have never been actually separated, they still exist as the cylinder, One Whole, but in a higher dimension not directly accessible to us. So in quantum experiments we are not changing the "cylinder", we are not forming the world by observations, we are, by observation, conforming our world to one view, one snapshot, of the quantum world. (So goodbye Copenhagen). If you combined the circle, the rectangle and the rectangle-curved-at-both-ends, you might could ~see~ they all derived-from a cylinder, you might could visualize (abstract) the whole-cylinder, and "see" it exists in a higher dimension. Or you might could... Our cylinder-soup-can-analogy is quantum soup. (I thought someone would extrapolate that). The analogy explains the results of the double-slit experiment. (How ~some-thing~ can be both particle and wave, it can't be). {The cylinder-quantum-soup-can itself doesn't change. You have to put ~*both parts*~ of the experiment together to get a *~somewhat~*-picture of the quantum world. Particle results or wave results only explain the operation of the experimental apparatus, not the quantum world itself}. The analogy explains entanglement. (The two entangled ~some-things~ are always united in/as the cylinder-quantum-soup-can). The analogy explains how a ~some-thing~ can be in two places at once (a thing can't be, the "two places" always exist {as one} in-the cylinder-quantum-soup-can). {The hint here was Einstein's never understanding what light is}. The cylinder-quantum-soup-can exists in the quantum world of no-space, no-time, no-things. (I assumed that was a given).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 7, 2019 12:27:12 GMT -5
Sorry, the proof of Bell's theorem foreclosed on the possibility of a hidden variable theory, and that's really all that you're speculating about here. I can only conclude one or a combination of the following: You did not read the post. You don't understand the meaning of hidden variables. You didn't get that cylinder is an analogy or don't understand the analogy. To be a variable the variable has to vary. Hidden variables deal with locality. (Meaning hidden variable proponents are looking for loopholes trying to hold on to determinism and locality. I'm not). I will bump the post and highlight what's pertinent (to this post), and explain the original post somewhat (meaning, there's more in it). Oh, I understand hidden variables, how the notion of hidden variables relates to what you posted, and how both hidden variables and Bohm's ideas (and the others you referred to) relate to Bells theorem quite well, thanks anyway. I'm interested enough to point this out to ya', but far from interested enough to spend any time and energy debating it. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 7, 2019 12:38:51 GMT -5
I can only conclude one or a combination of the following: You did not read the post. You don't understand the meaning of hidden variables. You didn't get that cylinder is an analogy or don't understand the analogy. To be a variable the variable has to vary. Hidden variables deal with locality. (Meaning hidden variable proponents are looking for loopholes trying to hold on to determinism and locality. I'm not). I will bump the post and highlight what's pertinent (to this post), and explain the original post somewhat (meaning, there's more in it). Oh, I understand hidden variables, how the notion of hidden variables relates to what you posted, and how both hidden variables and Bohm's ideas (and the others you referred to) relate to Bells theorem quite well, thanks anyway. I'm interested enough to point this out to ya', but far from interested enough to spend any time and energy debating it. Sorry. OK, no problem. My bumped and highlighted post stands.
|
|
|
Post by spooky on Jun 21, 2019 10:37:02 GMT -5
Hello, I'm not someone who claims to be extremely knowledgable about QM but I do have a bit a time put into researching this stuff. I read this thread and am very intrigued by QM and the implications about our universe that are put forth by these theories. You make good points about the state of a quantum "particle" being directly related to the data being transferred around rather than an actual movement of the "particle". I have been convinced for a while that data is the actual causation of reality. Our perception of this data is what constructs the reality that we know and love . What I think people in general dont grasp easily is that things like magnetic state, density, and other physical phenomena are a result and not the basis. Data is expelled from quantum "communication" and thus we perceive and are built from these results. It's obvious that we do not create reality or have any real power over our environment so to say that perception is the cause of reality would be incorrect. I personally like to use density as an example where we obviously cannot pass through objects of greater density but we also know that the subatomic structure is more like a cloud or really an expulsion of frequency. We perceive density as a structure of atoms but each atomic particle is individually made of a variable that, when together, create a "dense" material. What we are observing is the interaction between these variables and quantify it as density. I have other, more spirtual-type beliefs about this interaction but I won't get into that here. But I found this thread incredibly interesting and a great summary of quantum mechanics. I do disagree with the idea of a "multiverse". While I agree that there is an infinite state of quantum particles, I believe that these all exist inside one universe and that the data is perceived by an observer but not that the observer creates infinite realities with every decision. It seems to me that a reality made up of instantly updating "things" can achieve infinite possibilities and that there doesnt need to be any other timelines or alternate realities as long as the quantum "particle" can take on any set of data. It's similar to how computers work with bytes where 1s and 0s can create a seemingly infinite number of possibilities. I'm sure that I have not read everything on this topic and I have no valid credentials, so if you have any remarks I an open to constructive criticism.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2019 15:43:04 GMT -5
Hello, I'm not someone who claims to be extremely knowledgable about QM but I do have a bit a time put into researching this stuff. I read this thread and am very intrigued by QM and the implications about our universe that are put forth by these theories. You make good points about the state of a quantum "particle" being directly related to the data being transferred around rather than an actual movement of the "particle". I have been convinced for a while that data is the actual causation of reality. Our perception of this data is what constructs the reality that we know and love . What I think people in general dont grasp easily is that things like magnetic state, density, and other physical phenomena are a result and not the basis. Data is expelled from quantum "communication" and thus we perceive and are built from these results. It's obvious that we do not create reality or have any real power over our environment so to say that perception is the cause of reality would be incorrect. I personally like to use density as an example where we obviously cannot pass through objects of greater density but we also know that the subatomic structure is more like a cloud or really an expulsion of frequency. We perceive density as a structure of atoms but each atomic particle is individually made of a variable that, when together, create a "dense" material. What we are observing is the interaction between these variables and quantify it as density. I have other, more spirtual-type beliefs about this interaction but I won't get into that here. But I found this thread incredibly interesting and a great summary of quantum mechanics. I do disagree with the idea of a "multiverse". While I agree that there is an infinite state of quantum particles, I believe that these all exist inside one universe and that the data is perceived by an observer but not that the observer creates infinite realities with every decision. It seems to me that a reality made up of instantly updating "things" can achieve infinite possibilities and that there doesnt need to be any other timelines or alternate realities as long as the quantum "particle" can take on any set of data. It's similar to how computers work with bytes where 1s and 0s can create a seemingly infinite number of possibilities. I'm sure that I have not read everything on this topic and I have no valid credentials, so if you have any remarks I an open to constructive criticism. Welcome spooky, I'll be back later. One comment for now, density basically comes-from repulsion between atoms via electrons. Nice post.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2019 16:01:23 GMT -5
I'll try to find the article or at least post a reference to it, but some experiments concerning the role of the observer in the double-slit experiment have recently been in the news. Someone else may know where to find that news article. It had to do with the distance a subatomic particle travelled from the double slit to the detector and some measurements related to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 6:47:24 GMT -5
Considered starting another thread, Quantum Mechanics and higher dimensions, but decided to continue here. The other day I was reading a book by psychotherapist/existential psychologist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl, and he supplied an analogy which I immediately adapted to quantum mechanics. You can look at some of the earlier posts for background, but briefly ( or you can skip to paragraph 4). QM is the most successful theory ever in physics, it has never been shown to be wrong. What does his mean? It means physicists can do the math and make predictions, and about 30% of our economy has come directly from what we know about QM. But it also means in the words of Noble winner Richard Feynman, I think I can safely say nobody understands QM. What does this mean? It means the picture given by QM does not fit into the ~language~ of our everyday world. It means *things* (an electron is a thing) can be in two places at once, either time travel exists or there is reverse causality-but-more-specifically, determinism does not exist in the microworld, period, randomness reigns. Success in QM stands on the probability of numbers of processes (therein predictions possible), not on individual events (which are random). If we take light as an example, a photon is a particle, but light can behave as either a particle or a wave (which is spread-out IOW not-a-particle). The double-slit experiment is the best example of the quantum dilemma of trying to make real-world sense of QM. The firing of particle-photons at a target gives a bullet-type pattern like you would get by firing a gun at a target. If you have one slit open in the experiment this is what you get, a bullet-like pattern. But if you open two slits and fire photons at them, even one photon at a time, at the target you get a diffraction pattern, or an interference pattern, like you get with wave phenomenon (IOW, not a bullet-like pattern). This shows the photons went through both slits, causing interference patterns where troughs or peaks of waves either line up or cancel each other out. Now, the following is where the craziness of quantum phenomenon, and the gist of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM enters the picture. If you open both slits, but observe either one slit or the other (it doesn't matter if you observe the slit that the photon went through or the slit it didn't go through, that is really bizarre) you revert to getting a bullet-like pattern at the target. IOW, observing in and of itself, changes whether the photon goes through one slit or two slits. Physicists to this day still do not understand what is happening in the double-slit experiment. It seems as if observing in and of itself (and the observing can be done with a mechanical system, like a camera, and as simple as turning the camera on or off, that is, observing or not-observing) determines if the photon goes through one slit or both slits, that is, getting either a bullet-like pattern or a wave pattern. Frankl gave an analogy of looking at an object in its own dimension or looking at it in a lower dimension. He took as example a cylinder. To fit our example let's say the cylinder, in and of itself, that is, as it is, represents the fifth dimension, let's call that the quantum realm. You know what a cylinder is, a can of soup is a cylinder. If you remove one dimension, bringing the cylinder to our 3D/4D dimension (3 dimensions of space, one of time), by casting a light onto the top of the cylinder, what we see is a circle, the shadow is a circle. However, if we cast a light perpendicular to the side of the cylinder, we see in our 3D/4D world, a rectangle-shadow. In 5D we have a cylinder, in 3D/4D we have, from the same object, either a shadow-circle or a shadow-rectangle. Now, if you want to you can sit with that a while... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, for 95+ years physicists have pondered how crazy the quantum world seems to be. How can light be both a particle and a wave? How can the simple act of observing change reality? How can the simple act of observing, form what is, determine what is? How can something be in two places at once? How can the causal classical everyday world be formed from a more-basic world that is random, that is not-causal? I will add here something Einstein said near the end of his life. I have pondered most of my life on what light is, and I still do not know. So, from our analogy, the actual quantum world exists in a higher dimension, and we do not really know or understand what that world is (like). In our analogy we ~ can't see~ the cylinder. We do not really have actual access to that world, all we can do is perform experiments which give us "photographs", a snapshot in time. And it seems that our results from these experiments can only give a partial picture of the world as it is. If we do a certain kind of experiment (if we have a measuring device present at at least one slit) we get rectangles (bullet-type patterns) in our 3D/4D world, and if we do another kind of experiment (no observing at the slits) we get circles (wave patterns) in our 3D/4D world. So depending upon our experiment we either get rectangles (particles) or circles (waves). So the quantum world is what it is, we don't change the quantum world via our experiments. We don't change the nature of the cylinder. Depending upon the type of experiment we do, we get either rectangles or circles. And there are other quantum properties too, for example spin. And properties are usually complementary, that is, they come in pairs (like rectangles and circles). David Bohm developed a theory of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate world is the world of Wholeness (cylinders). The Explicate world is our experiential universe ("rectangles and circles"). So our analogy also explains entanglement. Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon understood and named by Schrodinger. Two particles having once interacted are forever connected to each other, even superseding the speed of light (Einstein called this spooky action at a distance). Bohm said the Implicate Order is a world of undivided wholeness, the world of the "cylinder". So in entanglement experiments, entangled pairs are formed. We could say this is like shinning a light down at a 45 degree angle at our soup can, from the upper side, and simultaneously shinning a light up at our soup can at 45 degrees, so we now, {seemingly}, have two particles (shadows), one (A) spin up and one (B) spin down. (You have a kind-of/(almost) rectangle with curved ends). Now, whatever you do to particle-shadow (A) has an instantaneous correspondence and seeming effect on particle-shadow (B), no matter if (A) is on one side of the galaxy and (B) is on the other side of the galaxy. (This correspondence has been experimentally verified in the laboratory, even superseding the speed of light). But we could say that in the Implicate Order of Wholeness, these particles have never been actually separated, they still exist as the cylinder, One Whole, but in a higher dimension not directly accessible to us. So in quantum experiments we are not changing the "cylinder", we are not forming the world by observations, we are, by observation, conforming our world to one view, one snapshot, of the quantum world. (So goodbye Copenhagen). If you combined the circle, the rectangle and the rectangle-curved-at-both-ends, you might could ~see~ they all derived-from a cylinder, you might could visualize (abstract) the whole-cylinder, and "see" it exists in a higher dimension. Or you might could... Dubious about more spatial dimensions expaining away quantum weirdness. This is a commonly postulated concept. There's the rub our brains can't conceptualize in more than three. For what it's worth Poincare thought three was not enough. I need a year to think about this one.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2019 7:49:39 GMT -5
Considered starting another thread, Quantum Mechanics and higher dimensions, but decided to continue here. The other day I was reading a book by psychotherapist/existential psychologist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl, and he supplied an analogy which I immediately adapted to quantum mechanics. You can look at some of the earlier posts for background, but briefly ( or you can skip to paragraph 4). QM is the most successful theory ever in physics, it has never been shown to be wrong. What does his mean? It means physicists can do the math and make predictions, and about 30% of our economy has come directly from what we know about QM. But it also means in the words of Noble winner Richard Feynman, I think I can safely say nobody understands QM. What does this mean? It means the picture given by QM does not fit into the ~language~ of our everyday world. It means *things* (an electron is a thing) can be in two places at once, either time travel exists or there is reverse causality-but-more-specifically, determinism does not exist in the microworld, period, randomness reigns. Success in QM stands on the probability of numbers of processes (therein predictions possible), not on individual events (which are random). If we take light as an example, a photon is a particle, but light can behave as either a particle or a wave (which is spread-out IOW not-a-particle). The double-slit experiment is the best example of the quantum dilemma of trying to make real-world sense of QM. The firing of particle-photons at a target gives a bullet-type pattern like you would get by firing a gun at a target. If you have one slit open in the experiment this is what you get, a bullet-like pattern. But if you open two slits and fire photons at them, even one photon at a time, at the target you get a diffraction pattern, or an interference pattern, like you get with wave phenomenon (IOW, not a bullet-like pattern). This shows the photons went through both slits, causing interference patterns where troughs or peaks of waves either line up or cancel each other out. Now, the following is where the craziness of quantum phenomenon, and the gist of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM enters the picture. If you open both slits, but observe either one slit or the other (it doesn't matter if you observe the slit that the photon went through or the slit it didn't go through, that is really bizarre) you revert to getting a bullet-like pattern at the target. IOW, observing in and of itself, changes whether the photon goes through one slit or two slits. Physicists to this day still do not understand what is happening in the double-slit experiment. It seems as if observing in and of itself (and the observing can be done with a mechanical system, like a camera, and as simple as turning the camera on or off, that is, observing or not-observing) determines if the photon goes through one slit or both slits, that is, getting either a bullet-like pattern or a wave pattern. Frankl gave an analogy of looking at an object in its own dimension or looking at it in a lower dimension. He took as example a cylinder. To fit our example let's say the cylinder, in and of itself, that is, as it is, represents the fifth dimension, let's call that the quantum realm. You know what a cylinder is, a can of soup is a cylinder. If you remove one dimension, bringing the cylinder to our 3D/4D dimension (3 dimensions of space, one of time), by casting a light onto the top of the cylinder, what we see is a circle, the shadow is a circle. However, if we cast a light perpendicular to the side of the cylinder, we see in our 3D/4D world, a rectangle-shadow. In 5D we have a cylinder, in 3D/4D we have, from the same object, either a shadow-circle or a shadow-rectangle. Now, if you want to you can sit with that a while... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, for 95+ years physicists have pondered how crazy the quantum world seems to be. How can light be both a particle and a wave? How can the simple act of observing change reality? How can the simple act of observing, form what is, determine what is? How can something be in two places at once? How can the causal classical everyday world be formed from a more-basic world that is random, that is not-causal? I will add here something Einstein said near the end of his life. I have pondered most of my life on what light is, and I still do not know. So, from our analogy, the actual quantum world exists in a higher dimension, and we do not really know or understand what that world is (like). In our analogy we ~ can't see~ the cylinder. We do not really have actual access to that world, all we can do is perform experiments which give us "photographs", a snapshot in time. And it seems that our results from these experiments can only give a partial picture of the world as it is. If we do a certain kind of experiment (if we have a measuring device present at at least one slit) we get rectangles (bullet-type patterns) in our 3D/4D world, and if we do another kind of experiment (no observing at the slits) we get circles (wave patterns) in our 3D/4D world. So depending upon our experiment we either get rectangles (particles) or circles (waves). So the quantum world is what it is, we don't change the quantum world via our experiments. We don't change the nature of the cylinder. Depending upon the type of experiment we do, we get either rectangles or circles. And there are other quantum properties too, for example spin. And properties are usually complementary, that is, they come in pairs (like rectangles and circles). David Bohm developed a theory of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate world is the world of Wholeness (cylinders). The Explicate world is our experiential universe ("rectangles and circles"). So our analogy also explains entanglement. Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon understood and named by Schrodinger. Two particles having once interacted are forever connected to each other, even superseding the speed of light (Einstein called this spooky action at a distance). Bohm said the Implicate Order is a world of undivided wholeness, the world of the "cylinder". So in entanglement experiments, entangled pairs are formed. We could say this is like shinning a light down at a 45 degree angle at our soup can, from the upper side, and simultaneously shinning a light up at our soup can at 45 degrees, so we now, {seemingly}, have two particles (shadows), one (A) spin up and one (B) spin down. (You have a kind-of/(almost) rectangle with curved ends). Now, whatever you do to particle-shadow (A) has an instantaneous correspondence and seeming effect on particle-shadow (B), no matter if (A) is on one side of the galaxy and (B) is on the other side of the galaxy. (This correspondence has been experimentally verified in the laboratory, even superseding the speed of light). But we could say that in the Implicate Order of Wholeness, these particles have never been actually separated, they still exist as the cylinder, One Whole, but in a higher dimension not directly accessible to us. So in quantum experiments we are not changing the "cylinder", we are not forming the world by observations, we are, by observation, conforming our world to one view, one snapshot, of the quantum world. (So goodbye Copenhagen). If you combined the circle, the rectangle and the rectangle-curved-at-both-ends, you might could ~see~ they all derived-from a cylinder, you might could visualize (abstract) the whole-cylinder, and "see" it exists in a higher dimension. Or you might could... Dubious about more spatial dimensions expaining away quantum weirdness. This is a commonly postulated concept. There's the rub our brains can't conceptualize in more than three. For what it's worth Poincare thought three was not enough. I need a year to think about this one. Think of it (higher dimensions) in terms of speed of vibrations. Consider "Seths" world. Consider "the Kingdom of Heaven" that is present, here, now (within you). Consider radio waves (and x-rays and gamma Ray's, etc.) which we knew nothing about until we had instruments that could measure them. A higher dimension is just a higher energy level, energy vibrating at such a speed we cannot measure. This is beyond Planck's minimum quantum level. Both time and space are quantized. That doesn't mean "reality" ends at the quantum level. It means reality "picks up" ~on the other side-of~ our ordinary human capacity, at a higher rate of vibration. Dimensions are quantized. That us, there is a quantum gap between dimensions. That is, each dimension ~seems~ to go-to infinity, but there are essentially infinities within infinities, each new higher dimension is an infinity within an infinity (at a higher level of energy, a yet higher vibration), each new higher dimension would have a "quantum-{like} limit", a gap. A higher dimension would be ~similar-to~ our world. "Seth's world" is an example. Like our world, but also not-like our world. Our world is a shadow (less real) of a higher world.
|
|
|
Post by spooky on Jun 22, 2019 8:22:35 GMT -5
Dubious about more spatial dimensions expaining away quantum weirdness. This is a commonly postulated concept. There's the rub our brains can't conceptualize in more than three. For what it's worth Poincare thought three was not enough. I need a year to think about this one. Think of it (higher dimensions) in terms of speed of vibrations. Consider "Seths" world. Consider "the Kingdom of Heaven" that is present, here, now (within you). Consider radio waves (and x-rays and gamma Ray's, etc.) which we knew nothing about until we had instruments that could measure them. A higher dimension is just a higher energy level, energy vibrating at such a speed we cannot measure. This is beyond Planck's minimum quantum level. Both time and space are quantized. That doesn't mean "reality" ends at the quantum level. It means reality "picks up" ~on the other side-of~ our ordinary human capacity, at a higher rate of vibration. Dimensions are quantized. That us, there is a quantum gap between dimensions. That is, each dimension ~seems~ to go-to infinity, but there are essentially infinities within infinities, each new higher dimension is an infinity within an infinity (at a higher level of energy, a yet higher vibration), each new higher dimension would have a "quantum-{like} limit", a gap. A higher dimension would be ~similar-to~ our world. "Seth's world" is an example. Like our world, but also not-like our world. Our world is a shadow (less real) of a higher world. Again well put I like to think of it like digital art where each layer is placed overtop of one another to create the full picture but you can take away individual layers and only see a piece of the picture. Your description of the frequency is spot on though. We only consider planks constant as "constant" because that is the current level of perception.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2019 10:26:58 GMT -5
Think of it (higher dimensions) in terms of speed of vibrations. Consider "Seths" world. Consider "the Kingdom of Heaven" that is present, here, now (within you). Consider radio waves (and x-rays and gamma Ray's, etc.) which we knew nothing about until we had instruments that could measure them. A higher dimension is just a higher energy level, energy vibrating at such a speed we cannot measure. This is beyond Planck's minimum quantum level. Both time and space are quantized. That doesn't mean "reality" ends at the quantum level. It means reality "picks up" ~on the other side-of~ our ordinary human capacity, at a higher rate of vibration. Dimensions are quantized. That us, there is a quantum gap between dimensions. That is, each dimension ~seems~ to go-to infinity, but there are essentially infinities within infinities, each new higher dimension is an infinity within an infinity (at a higher level of energy, a yet higher vibration), each new higher dimension would have a "quantum-{like} limit", a gap. A higher dimension would be ~similar-to~ our world. "Seth's world" is an example. Like our world, but also not-like our world. Our world is a shadow (less real) of a higher world. Again well put I like to think of it like digital art where each layer is placed overtop of one another to create the full picture but you can take away individual layers and only see a piece of the picture. Your description of the frequency is spot on though. We only consider planks constant as "constant" because that is the current level of perception. Yes. Oh...and...physicists say 96% of the universe is missing, as dark matter (to explain gravitional anomalies particularly the speed of rotation of galaxies) and dark energy (to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe). This missing part of the universe is the higher dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2019 13:41:41 GMT -5
|
|