Quantum Measuring Paradox

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead,

 

 

Perhaps you should ask it otherwise around: Can you convince anyone that there exists even a single particle with strictly defined limits?

 

But actually, I find your framing of the question flawed.

 

 

Oh!, I will never deny that my thinking and understanding is oftentimes flawed.

 

My perhaps flawed thinking on this subject is surely a result of who I am. My brain requires logic in order for me to accept something (a concept) as valid. As of yet logic has not been attained in my mind.

 

Perhaps I am placing unrealistic limits to my questions. Don't know. But I do agree that every thing and every non-thing are dynamic. There is no permanence (except for change).

 

I heard recently while watching a science program on TV that infinity does not exist. Had something to do with the theory of relativity. On the one hand I agree that every thing and every non-thing change. But then I also hold to the understanding that energy is never 'lost', but rather, energy takes different forms over time.

 

But can't we take a picture of a particle of energy and say "This is exactly where this particle was at this given point in time/space."? Sure, we only took a picture of it while it was moving from point "A" to point "B", but still, it was exactly at "this" place at "that" given point in time/space.

 

Although I do sometimes sound a little (much?) limited in my understandings I do try to remain flexible. But before I can accept a concept it first much follow a logical sequence. If it isn't logical, no matter how hard I try to understand it, my brain just does not accept it.

 

Anyhow, I am in only one place at the moment. Taking a break from working outside.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

What's good for Taoists is that some ideas fit very well with the Tao. Change as at the underlying principle of life for instance or interactivity (like yin and yang) generating multiplicity and the relative application of values and so on.

 

Yep. I do understand that quantum mechanics is valid and it explains well the micro. And relativity is also valid and it explains well the macro. It is also my understanding that the two are still not compatible. Some understandings are still missing.

 

I agree that quantum mechanics has explained much of what is 'known' today and that it has everyday applications.

 

Now where did that elusive particle go?!?!?!

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

 

But can't we take a picture of a particle of energy and say "This is exactly where this particle was at this given point in time/space."? Sure, we only took a picture of it while it was moving from point "A" to point "B", but still, it was exactly at "this" place at "that" given point in time/space.

 

 

To take a picture of a particle you would have to bounce photon (light) off it. You could do this to say where it is but then you would have changed its momentum and therefore its velocity.

[Marblehead]

What if there IS NO ONE PLACE?

 

And that, from what I understand, is the paradox of string theory and its requirement for alternate universes. (What is commonly accepted now? Eleven?)

 

So we all could be in eleven different places at the same time if this were true. And all possible potentials of our condition would be possilbe in the other ten alternate universes.

 

Wierd stuff!

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

To take a picture of a particle you would have to bounce photon (light) off it. You could do this to say where it is but then you would have changed its momentum and therefore its velocity.

 

Yes, I have heard something of this. That supposedly a particles location can be altered depending whether it is observed or not observed. True, nothing is static. And 'what makes things go' is still a learning process. Mostly I am a self-starter. I make me go.

 

Peace & Love!

[joeblast]

Yes, I have heard something of this. That supposedly a particles location can be altered depending whether it is observed or not observed. True, nothing is static. And 'what makes things go' is still a learning process. Mostly I am a self-starter. I make me go.

 

Peace & Love!

With macroscopic objects, a photon is of little consequence, but as you get smaller and smaller, even the relatively small momentum (after all, any massless particle only has momentum and no rest mass; the rest mass-energy in the equations divide by zero at c) will have an increasing impact - especially since you'd need to decrease the wavelength (i.e. add more energy so that it has a higher vibration) in order to probe smaller and smaller.

 

So a massless particle travels at c from the instant of its creation - it must be so, for you cant pass the barrier, but if you're already there, then no barrier to pass

[Marblehead]

How does that saying go? I feel so apart from myself.

 

Cheeeezzzee!

 

Peace & Love!

[rain]

Looks cool -- I thought you meant Solaris as the basis for Tarkovsky's amazing movie. Oh yeah that was Stanislaw Lem

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069293/

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ian_McEwan

 

McEwan's most recent work, Solar, was published by Jonathan Cape and Doubleday in March 2010.[9] In June 2008 at the Hay Festival, McEwan gave a surprise reading of this work-in-progress. According to reportage of the reading in The Guardian, the novel concerns "a scientist who hopes to save the planet."[10] from the threat of climate change, with inspiration for the novel coming from a trip McEwan made in 2005 "when he was part of an expedition of artists and scientists who spent several weeks aboard a ship near the north pole to discuss environmental concerns". McEwan divulged to the audience that "The novel's protagonist Michael Beard has been awarded a Nobel prize for his pioneering work on physics, and has discovered that winning the coveted prize has interfered with his work"[10] but denied that the novel, which was not due to be published for at least two years, was a comedy, saying "I hate comic novels; it's like being wrestled to the ground and being tickled, being forced to laugh"[10], instead, that it had extended comic stretches.

 

 

thanks fo re-minding me of Tarkovskij, I haven't seen anything from him since The Mirror and Stalker. I was deeply impressed with his ability to mess with my cognitive structure, tease my brain so to say. I also enjoy a good picture.

no I wasn't referring to him obviously but to the dubious "synchronisity" of "photovoltaics" as he chose to name the light splitting water eco/phyto- technology he describes in his book Solaris

Remember the Feynman's Plaid?

[voidisyinyang]

 

Hey Drew? What's the maximum distance you've performed an O and D?

 

Good question. I'm not sure if it is limited to distance -- it might just rely on the shen/spirit/visualization for focus.

 

For example let's say I have an "energy exchange" with a female. Let's say a young fertile female sees me and I her and then she goes into backside display behavior. So she stands in front of me with her backside right at my eye level so that my chi energy goes into her most efficiently. Obviously I have the predictable male reaction as this occurs.

 

But what is less obvious is that her female jing energy is now "imprinted" in my body as a subconscious holographic memory -- stored there -- and WAITING to be sublimated later by my full lotus practice. When that sublimation occurs then the memory of her will also arise along with the internal climax on my part and who is to say there is not still some connection between us as I "exorcise" her sex energy?

 

Still on "practical" terms I can say that I've tested the O at a D in a stiff strong gale wind -- just to see if it was just some chemical energy that might be blown off. Nope -- wind did not effect it. So I'm convinced it is the chi energy as my brain is definitely filled with the chi energy as the O at a D happens. That was still a visual connection despite the strong wind and a distance of a couple hundred feet.

 

But visual connection is obviously not necessary. Through walls and ceilings is my current norm as sitting in full lotus in a trance tends to put off those not comfortable with ASCs. Lots of noise as my energy blockages clear out as well. The next door neighbor -- through the wall of a house and through the wall of another house -- is no problem. Even if the houses are not close together. But the farthest I can recall off-hand is from a next door neighbor with her back to me as she was probably 500 feet away. Not sure since I couldn't see her but I could HEAR her (again the female voice is the jing energy being transmitted back to me).

 

BTW I've had PRECOGNITIVE "O at a Ds" as well! It happened to me this morning in a sense -- but one time I had a precognitive dream about a certain female doing a dance in front of me in a speciality grocery store. Strange dream as normally I can analyze my dreams to figure out the subconscious associations from the previous day that led to the dream. Anyway sure enough I had the "Glitch in the Matrix" experience when that dream came true in exact detail a few days later. Bizarre but it's happened to me enough -- once three years in advance!! -- that I got used to it to a certain extent.

 

So it's not just distance but time as well -- and I'm really not sure it is limited. I think there has to be long-distance energy exchange involved as well.

Edited June 8, 2010 by drewhempel

[Creation]

There is an approach to the quantum measurement problem where a particle does in fact have a definite position at all times. It is called the Pilot Wave theory. It's champion among the second generation of quantum physicists was David Bohm, who in addition to being a brilliant physicist, was quite philosophically astute, and interested in the relationship between the quantum, the mind, and the spirit (he was friends with Krishnamurti). His writings might be of interest to participants in this thread. "The Undivided Universe" was the last and most complete expression of his views on quantum physics, while "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" is a classic, and a bit less technical if memory serves.

 

When you look at the history of quantum physics, you can't help but notice the immense influence of Bohr over all the founders of quantum mechanics (Pauli, Dirac, etc.). He was the one who was dictating what everything "meant" for a long time. Actually, when Heisenberg discovered the uncertainty relations, he went to Bohr to discuss their meaning, and Bohr so intensely argued against Heisenberg's ideas that he made Heisenberg cry. One of the chief aspects of his philosophy was positivism: don't ever make statements about what "is", just what you have measured. Therefore, there simply is no conceptualization of the 2 slit experiment in Bohr's philosophy because to get one you have to measure things, which messes up the whole experiment. That was one of his slipperiest maneuvers in his debates with Einstein. Now, Heisenberg's ideas about the "gamma ray microscope" and how measuring the position disturbs the momentum give a sort of "picture" to the uncertainty principle, and this is what Bohr didn't like. Later, when Feynman came up with the path integral, Bohr said "No, this is totally wrong" because it conceptualized electrons as having paths, i.e. it gave a picture. So in this type of environment, of course the pilot wave theory never caught on. The only reason Feynman's ideas caught on is because he used path integrals so successfully to do calculations in quantum field theory. But now there are chemists using Bohm's ideas about electron trajectories, who knows, maybe it will become more mainstream.

 

But truth be told, Bohr did have a point in that in the formalism of quantum mechanics, there is absolutely no indication that observing the particle "disturbs" it in any way. There is just a rule to compute probabilities of outcomes of measurements, from which one can derive that the product of the standard deviations for position and momentum must be greater than some constant, which is the mathematical statement of the uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's heuristic picture of the situation is actually not derivable from the quantum formalism, and so IMO should not be taken as seriously as it often is. And yet, I don't think physics has really come to grips with the fact that everything is interacting with everything else all the time. How could it? Prediction would become completely impossible. That is why I think all the stuff about a "Final Theory" is ridiculous. I personally romanticize the idea that quantum mechanics is what you get when you make the best predictions you can by approximating the ALL THAT IS by, say, electron + measuring apparatus (which will necessarily be statistical in nature). But demonstrating that (indeed even precisely formulating the idea) would require quite a bit of cleverness and hard work in philosophy, physics, and mathematics.

 

 

In order to create interference patterns the photons have to group together - so what is the connection between photons which allows this to happen? To put it in simple terms how does any one photons know where any other photon is at any one time? Or is it that a single photon can be in two places at the same time?

This is not quite correct. I think you are thinking of entanglement, whereas in the 2 slit experiment the issue is superposition (which is related, but not the same). As far as the formalism of quantum mechanics is concerned, the location where any individual photon will register on the screen is only probabilistically determined. The pattern that appears on the screen after shooting many photons is indeed what you would expect from shooting many photons at the screen that are completely independent of each other, namely, the same pattern as the probability distribution (Think of flipping a coin. Each flip is independent of the rest, so after a while you tend to get the same number of heads as tails, because the probability of getting heads is the same as getting tails). So what the mystery of the 2 slit experiment is is that probabilities don't combine normally! If you are dealing with classical particles, you get the probability distribution for the 2 slit experiment, and therefore the pattern that emerges on the screen, by adding the probability distributions for the individual slits, which gives you the expected two peaks. But quantum probabilities can interfere with each other. Note that it is the probabilities that are interfering with each other, not actual photons. This is the real reason for all the controversies about the 2 slit experiment, because after all, what the hell does that mean? Actually, there is a theory of "path integrals" developed by the mathematician Norbert Wiener 20 years before Feynman had the idea, in order to model diffusion, where an atom is constantly being jarred around by its neighbors in a random way. The only difference between this path integral formula and Feynman's is that in Wiener's formula probabilities combine by adding them like normal probabilities, but in Feynman's formula probabilities for different paths can interfere with each other, that is, cancel each other out. To put it mystically, what might have been is interfering with what is! .

[Z3N]

Edited June 9, 2010 by Z3N

[voidisyinyang]

[voidisyinyang]

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

i dont have the mind to read all thoughts posted here... but i read about waves and particles.

 

 

 

 

Wave, particle, ???, ???!

 

 

We've only two halves of a whole cycle!!

 

 

What else falls into the same classification group?

 

 

 

Beams and fractals, perhaps?

 

 

 

My mind is not scientific enough to com up with the other half of this equation right away.

[voidisyinyang]

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Yeah I have a more recent blogpost on this topic:

 

http://naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-raji-heyrovska-for-real-has.html

 

Here's a fascinating lecture on quantum cosmology:

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-universe-from-nothing-lecture/

 

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing.

 

Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including “The Physics of Star Trek.”

 

If you’ve ever wanted to answer that annoying question, “how could the Universe have formed from nothing”, then watch this video.

 

Lawrence Krauss is funny, informative, and if you watch the entire video (it’s over an hour long, so you might need to pause it a few times), he will blow your mind. Lawrence seems like a pretty cool guy

 

 

 

 

good god:

 

 

"" Recently, I have found that the Golden ratio found in the geometry of many sponatneous creations in the Nature, actually arise right in the core of atoms due to electrostatic reasons. ""

 

 

 

I calculated teh fibonacci sequence to approx. 161 hundred quadrillion... the GMR is 1.61.

 

 

 

OR am i confusing the GMR with a different ratio?

 

The theory is that the lowest common denominator is the equivalent of all 100% whole of all of all of all of all of all (all of all = 1 piece of all).

 

 

edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I watched the video up to the "black and lit" lines.

 

 

 

RETARDS!

 

 

You'd need a slit that was WIDER THAN THE LASER in order to prevent REFLECTING AND REFRACTING, which results in wavelike patterns.

 

 

 

GOOD GOD ARE SCIENTISTS IDIOTS OR WHAT?

Edited July 4, 2010 by Stoner Shadow Wolf