Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
and the thing is that quantum physics (in some way) suggests our consciousness is the main factor that shapes this reality (double slit)

Some people think the observer effect is just the result of how instruments affect experiments:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The reason the observer effect is so prominent in quantum mechanics is that quantum particles are so small they are nearly impossible to measure without affecting them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other people are conducting experiments that may suggest otherwise. From the Institute of Noetic Sciences, a 6 page PDF, "Intention and Reality - The Ghost in the Machine Returns" by Dean Radin:

To give a flavor for how the power of intention is being studied in the laboratory, let’s briefly consider two experiments recently conducted at IONS.The first explored the quantum observer effect—modern physics’ “skeleton in he closet” suggesting that consciousness is inextricably wound into the fabric of reality. Experienced meditators nd nonmeditators were asked to imagine . . .

media.noetic.org...

a reply to: Mary Rose

Your right the set up of the experiment effects the results. By observing we add additional energy to the system cant be helped. But like in the double slit experiment there is alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation. One being De Broglie–Bohm theory in this a matter wave stretches in front of our particle much like a boat travelling through the water. the boat will send waves forward as it travels. Now thers some unique evidence for this theory done with light. In the experiments we find that we can have a photon exit a plasma before it actually enters. The theory is these matter waves themselves can propagate. Ill have to find the experiment its somewhere in my work computer.

plato.stanford.edu...

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your right the set up of the experiment effects the results.

No, I'm not right.

If you agree, you're agreeing with Arbitrageur.

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hm, it's so hard to explain in simple terms...

in my opinion, what science today is excluding from their equation is the consciousness... without self aware consciousness there could never be E=mc2, right?

What? How do you figure that?

and the thing is that quantum physics (in some way) suggests our consciousness is the main factor that shapes this reality (double slit)

That is the misleading message in a non-scientific movie that pretended to be about science, and I made a thread for people like you who apparently were confused by that movie or similar sources:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

couldn't the science with that knowledge shape our consciousnesses to make the world to be a better place? (it's making it worse at the moment)

lolz, who am I kidding... there is no such a science, it's a dream... my dream

sorry, I am crazy

yes I am

You're human, and we may have something in our genes that predisposes us to seek supernatural explanations because this tendency is still prevalent even though time and time again science has shown there are natural explanations for what was previously thought to be supernatural.

If history tells us anything in this regard, it's that just because we don't fully understand consciousness scientifically yet, that's not a good reason to give it supernatural attributes.


a reply to: Mary Rose
a reply to: Mary Rose
Noted with thanks.
dragonridr doesn't always agree with me but that's ok because even when we have a difference of opinion I can understand his perspective and respect his opinion, but in this case, yes he's probably agreeing with me about the observer effect on the double slit experiment.

Regarding Dean Radin, unlike some of the other cranks you like to follow who are so completely wrong I don't even consider them "fringe", like Bearden, Haramein and the Electric Universe crowd, I actually have more respect for Radin as he at least attempts to show the use of the scientific method in his work. I've had what could be ESP experiences, or they could be anecdotal or coincidental events and it would be interesting to see if science can validate such concepts.

In some ways I like Radin and his use of the scientific method, but I do have some concerns about him apparently being biased; just read what he wrote in the link you posted, and to me it seems like he's come to a conclusion already and somehow he's going to come up with "science" to back it up. I'm open-minded and don't dismiss psi research, but the best psi researchers will tell you it's a difficult topic to research because of all the cases of bias that have crept into studies, which have not been subsequently replicated once the bias was eliminated. So I'm just after the truth whatever that may be. I'm not sure if Radin is, but at least he presents things that can be evaluated scientifically on how well his experiments were set up.

From a previous post:

To give a flavor for how the power of intention is being studied in the laboratory, let’s briefly consider two experiments recently conducted at IONS.The first explored the quantum observer effect—modern physics’ “skeleton in he closet” suggesting that consciousness is inextricably wound into the fabric of reality. Experienced meditators nd nonmeditators were asked to imagine . . .

media.noetic.org...

Please note: It's too late for me to edit so please know that the errors "skeleton in he closet" and "meditators nd nonmeditators" are my errors in the copy and paste process from a website PDF to a saved Adobe Reader file to an ATS post, not errors in Dean Radin's document.

Should read:

To give a flavor for how the power of intention is being studied in the laboratory, let’s briefly consider two experiments recently conducted at IONS.The first explored the quantum observer effect—modern physics’ “skeleton in the closet” suggesting that consciousness is inextricably wound into the fabric of reality. Experienced meditators and nonmeditators were asked to imagine . . .

media.noetic.org...

You got a reply to this guy's question, Arb?

I had the same thought myself, actually.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Astyanax
You mean this question?

originally posted by: St Udio
why would a spectral line from Dark Matter (or rather Dark Energy) occupy a band of the physical Universe's Electro-Magnetic Spectrum

That's ErosA433's area of expertise, and he didn't address that question specifically, but he did post this diagram of dark matter candidates which is related to questions in that thread, including the one you cited:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That diagram lists axions and sterile neutrinos in the lower left and the extra dimensions on the right, mentioned in that thread's source article as some of the candidates that might be related to the observed spectral line though I don't understand how. Eros probably knows a lot more about these dark matter candidates than I do so maybe he can comment.

Apparently that spectral line was extremely difficult to detect. Given this, it's not entirely clear to me how they've ruled out ordinary matter as a possible source, of a very difficult to detect spectral line. It wouldn't be the first spectral line that didn't have a known source when it was discovered, then was later found to be a previously unknown line from ordinary matter.

originally posted by: Astyanax
You got a reply to this guy's question, Arb?

I had the same thought myself, actually.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reason it could have emission lines is interactions with other particles. Heres one possibility they think they may be detecting dark matter annihilation.

spectral analysis

Zounds!

Okay, then, here's an easy one (I hope): do dark matter and ordinary matter interpenetrate? What is the smallest volume of space they can simultaneously occupy?

Sorry if it's been asked before; I haven't read the whole thread. Going to do that now. Or try.

ETA: Oh, I see it already has been answered. Carry on, then, sorry for the interruption.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

ight. But just like the wavelength of orange light is midway between the wavelengths of red and yellow, and the wavelength of green light is midway between the wavelengths of yellow and blue, I intuitively almost expect violet light to be midway between blue and red -- but it isn't.

Someone's probably answered this already too, but... hell, it's late and I'm too tired to read the rest of the thread.

The colours we see are based on an analysis of the different signal strengths recorded from three different kinds of sensors or 'cones' — conventionally but inaccurately termed red, green, blue — in the retina. I think the point is that any colour we see is a mix of different frequencies being reflected off a coloured surface (or being emitted directly from a source and impinging on the retina). All three sets of sensors respond to all visible frequencies, but the amplitude:frequency response varies. Each sensor has a peak at a different frequency and falls off to either side of the peak. The respectve peaks of the three sensors are (roughly) at the places we call red, green and blue.

The brain does amazing fourier analysis on the incoming full-spectrum signals from all three sensors and what you see is the wondrous palette of visible colours.

My guess is that magenta is the perceptual product of a particularly widely-clustered spectrum of frequencies, with peaks at both the blue and the red ends. The fact that the range of frequencies (remember that colours have shades) we perceive as violet is similar to magenta is just a coincidental artifact of our physical sensorium.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
(my prediction is you will respond to this last portion of bravado mainly and give a paragraph long quip of how 'scientests dont really think this blah blah blah...' this is not the point, please respond to my above above questions and points.

For the umpteenth time, as stated in the opening post, and in the previous thread, scientists don't even have a consensus on the Copenhagen interpretation, so it's not like there's one unified idea of mainstream science that you can refute, but you don't seem to like any of them. You don't like Copenhagen, Many Worlds, and Pilot Wave interpretations, that I know of, which others do you also dismiss? Have you got a new one not listed in the OP video survey results?

Though scientists can't agree on the interpretation, they all agree on the experimental results, which appear to show some kind of wave particle duality.

If I had the "correct" answers to your questions, and could prove it, I'd probably be getting a Nobel prize for that, and by the way so would you if you had proof, but I'm afraid "logic" isn't proof since even the experimental results showing wave-particle duality strain our sense of logic to some degree.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


These are the options:


A particle exists. It travels in relatively straight lines


A particle exists. It travels in relatively straight lines, or a waving pattern (up down). Due to either, an inherent nature of the particle itself which causes it to travel up and down. Or, an inherent nature of the environment, which causes the particle to travel up and down. Or, a combination of both.


A particle does not exist. When moments of matter or energy are transformed from particle collisions or mechanisms that take energy of one kind, run it through a mechanism, to produce an event of new energy/matter that is emitted from the mechanism, this moment of event is called a particle, to designate the fact that it is a singular event, in time and space. If 5 of these events occur, that is 5 particles. But the event itself is not like a baseball, or steel ball, or marble, or apple, it is not an apparently solid object. When the event occurs, the 'matter'/energy that is produced is a 'wave' itself. Meaning....um...meaning...that, there is 'fundamental substance' that exists in 3 dimensions plus the way it moves through space and time, or time, as the 4th dimension, is the way a wave moves, and so it would be like if an apple was liquidy, and vibrating up and down, or if you had a machine that created apples...or apple juice, but it never created apples how we are used to them, it always created apple juice that was always vibrating up and down, and the applejuice was not composed of particles, the 3d area of applejuice was a particle itself, and it waved.


The last possibility, is maybe the one you prefer, which is the one you seem to like to express, if not because it is true, because it requires the least amount of accountability. And that way is, if in some instances when we have a device that creates events of newly organized energy/matter, during sometimes, it creates apples, and sometimes it creates applejuice, or it always creates apples but when the apples crash into the wall, then we detect apple juice.

The thing about that last possibility, is it still is not attempting to fundamentally describe and explain what the meaning of a particle and wave being qualities, describing terms, of an object means, and how they relate to one another, as being the same object.


A bb (from a bb gun), can be called a particle, agree? good, I can take that bb in my hand and walk forward and move it up and down. Is that bb now a particle and a wave?

I can take a fish tank of water, and put it on a machine that vibrates it in such a way to create waves in the tank, back and forth the waves go (water is funny because its waves, made of particles, made of waves...maybe) and then quickly through it in a flash freezer and boom, no more waves (at least wave action), those waves are now particle like objects, I can break them off and walk around, and ive got myself a particle, until I move it up and down, then its a wave again.


If water was not composed of parts, but the classical liquidity we are familiar with from our perspective was a fully continuous, one, connected to itself, fundamental substance; would this be the best way to describe your comprehension of what a particle/wave duality could actually be? Now if we imagined 5 different groupings of this fundamental water substance I just described; Oh and I forgot to say, the fully continuous, one, connected to itself, fundamental liquid substance, always waves, up and down; and so we have 5 different of these, they are always vibrating amongst themselves, different points on their areas are always higher and lower than others and alternating; having 5 of them would be the particle nature, if we were to zoom out, we would have 5 particles; but at the same time, they themselves would be, waves, substance waving.

Well since we were discussing multiverse figured id go over the different types. First theirs level one.

Level one multiverse - Basically says that space is so big that the rules of probability imply that surely, somewhere else out there, are other planets exactly like Earth. In fact, an infinite universe would have infinitely many planets, and on some of them, the events that play out would be virtually identical to those on our own Earth.
We don’t see these other universes because our cosmic vision is limited by the speed of light

Level two multiverse - This says regions of space are continuing to undergo an inflation phase. Because of the continuing inflationary phase in these universes, space between us and the other universes is literally expanding faster than the speed of light — and they are, therefore, completely unreachable.

Level three multiverse - This is the one where every single quantum possibility inherent in the quantum wavefunction becomes a real possibility in some reality. This is the one all the Sci fi movies play with where alternate universes exist in the same space and time as our own universe, but you still have no way to access them. The superpositions of different universes all coexist simultaneously in the same infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. These separate, coexisting universes interfere with each other, yielding the bizarre quantum behaviors.

Science is hard work, isn't it?

Lol you are hilarious.
a reply to: ImaFungi

a reply to: Nochzwei

Be nice.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
A bb (from a bb gun), can be called a particle, agree? good, I can take that bb in my hand and walk forward and move it up and down. Is that bb now a particle and a wave?

That's an oversimplification of Bohmian mechanics, aka "Pilot Wave" model. See this for a better discussion of such a model:

Strings, world-sheet covariant quantization and Bohmian mechanics

The covariant canonical method of quantization based on the De Donder-Weyl covariant canonical formalism is used to formulate a world-sheet covariant quantization of bosonic strings. To provide the consistency with the standard non-covariant canonical quantization, it is necessary to adopt a Bohmian deterministic hidden-variable equation of motion. In this way, string theory suggests a solution to the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics.

In that deterministic model the particle would go though only one slot, but appears to "interfere with itself" because the wave associated with the particle can go through the other slot. I'm open to this idea, the Copenhagen interpretation and other ideas mentioned in the OP video but I"m not particularly open-minded to the "Many-Worlds" interpretation the video presenter prefers, though I'm not so closed-minded I would reject the idea in the face of evidence supporting it. I think that would correspond to the level three multiverse dragonridr mentioned, which makes for great science fiction, but it doesn't seem that plausible to me.

If water was not composed of parts, but the classical liquidity we are familiar with from our perspective was a fully continuous, one, connected to itself, fundamental substance; would this be the best way to describe your comprehension of what a particle/wave duality could actually be?

So if water was not what it is, would this water example be a good model? Sorry I don't know how to answer that because of water being what it is.

a reply to: dragonridr

The wiki lists the four levels described by Max Tegmark, and the type 1 and type 3 descriptions seem to match, but not the type 2 since you didn't mention different physical constants:

Level II: Universes with different physical constants

From elsewhere in that link:

The multiverse hypothesis is a source of disagreement within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry. Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Raj Pathria, Sean Carroll and Alex Vilenkin. In contrast, critics such as David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, George Ellis and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.

Personally I lean toward the side of the disagreement that says until it's testable, the question is more philosophical than scientific.

This multiverse question came up early in the thread and I responded that the level 1 multiverse seemed the most plausible idea to me, but it also seems somewhat pointless to speculate about it since it seems unlikely we will ever know if the idea is completely true, completely false, or anywhere in-between.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Science is hard work, isn't it?

It depends, some science experiments are simple. Buddasystem and I tried to get you to spend $5 on materials like a multimeter to do a scientific test of the claims you were promoting about electrical resistance. Both Buddhasystem and I had done the experiment, and yes it was easy to do. But you refused to do it, apparently instead preferring to spend $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself.

It's really not that hard to do simple science like that experiment to measure electrical resistance. Running experiments at the LHC is another story, since it's much harder to do. I suppose hypothesizing untestable hypotheses like multiverses is easier, because if the hypotheses are untestable, we can't test them meaning it's less work.

a reply to: Nochzwei
You've got no room to criticize anybody else after making a thread about the magical properties of water supported and rejected by various anecdotes, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, posting it in the science forum, then attacking those who try to point out what it would take to make your claims scientific, by saying we shouldn't teach you about science. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You saying "special water is magic because I say so, trust me" is not the scientific method.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself. .

“False claims” is simply your opinion – nothing more.

How I spend my money is irrelevant.

DVDs are superb educational tools. They also allow people who are shut out by mainstream science, with their peer review tyranny, to communicate with the world.

The Science and Technology forum is about cutting edge science. Members are not required to do experiments before posting in it.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . $20 on a DVD making false claims which you could then post without testing them yourself. .

“False claims” is simply your opinion – nothing more.

How I spend my money is irrelevant.

yes how you spend your money is irrelevant i agree. But i will say many websites make money off false claims hoping people but into the mystical. And try to get people to unlock there mind or teach us to use the subconscious mind or free energy. Their sole purpose is to lie to you to get your $20 so educating yourself is a good thing.

DVDs are superb educational tools. They also allow people who are shut out by mainstream science, with their peer review tyranny, to communicate with the world.

Though peer review can be harsh its not hard to get something peer reviewed. With the internet getting papers published is as easy as a click of your mouse. As for DVDs being superb educational tools i totally agree as long as you separate fact and fiction and know which category your DVD falls in.

The Science and Technology forum is about cutting edge science. Members are not required to do experiments before posting in it.

Well cutting edge doesnt mean unproven or it wouldnt be science. I could make some wild claim about a unicorn particle that controls gravity. And with this unicorn particle i can cause things to levitate. When i make these claims i need what called supporting evidence in some way i have to show that my unicorn particle does indeed work. So what im saying cutting edge doesnt mean wrong there is plenty of cutting edge science.We have people already trying to figure out how to get warp drive and experiments with DNA will amaze you. But cutting edge doesnt mean wrong if its already shown to be incorrect and disproved than its no longer science its snake oil.