Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

Another one of those threads where responses fall into a category of absurdity. This is because, most posters want to show their prowess of understanding the discussion rather than be led to asking more penetrating questions on the claim and the implications the OP's post places before them.

Let me ask a very basic and simple question...what is the mechanism by which the most fundamental aspect of existence retain its existence? The clue to the answer lies in the game of tennis. There are other games that would equally suffice to illustrate the answer, but tennis is quite accurate.

Once you see the answer, the mechanism, a whole new paradigm of understanding will open for you. There's no superstition, nothing super or preternatural, it is just a simple mechanism, and it even explains the reason and modus of wave function breakdown, and why it seems that reality only appears when observed...but it is only seems.

There is no absurdity surrounding the understanding. I await in anticipation.

Read On a Better Way of Catching a Snake by Thich Nhat Hahn. Best understanding of the "realness" of experience despite that apparent delusional nature of much of our collective experience.


a reply to: elysiumfire

Well look at the BIG BANG and superposition from something the size of a particle this super massive universe has been made. So in the same way eveery particle may in fact be its own big bang.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

If that were the case, you and I wouldn't be here, and neither would the universe as we know it.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

If that were the case, you and I wouldn't be here, and neither would the universe as we know it.

That could be the point, maybe what we are seeing is a projection of sorts.

The answer is, THE MOON WOULD NEVER EXIST IF CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS WEREN'T HERE TO LOOK AT IT.

At the fundamental level of reality, a universe can't be measured just like a web page can't be seen unless a CONSCIOUS
OBSERVER will experience it.

TIme: 150,000 B.C.

Place: 22 meters outside a well-used hominid cave.

A biological entity's probability distribution squats over a crude ditch. Cylindrical biological waste and bacterial carcass plops out.

The monolith. A perfect black rectangle. A one, a four, a nine. If it had been observed, it would have perfect flat sides and a perfect ratio of squares in all dimensions.

Hovering above the hominid, something entangles spookily. Spike. Spike. glump. A neurotransmitter vesicle squirts its load unto its synapse. And another. Spike, spike spspspspspspspsppspsspike, a now substantial mutual interaction emerges across the frontal cortex of the biological compact probability distribution. And it continues until....

tic

the second most important moment in the history of the Universe.

an expanding wave across decoherently coupled wavefunctions at the speed of light (and occasionally faster with some magic residual entanglement) emerges from an ordinary yellow star rather in a boring place in its galaxy as the

Wavefunction Of The Universe

loses its unobserved virginity

and back somewhere in upper Ethiopia, a majestic excited hoot arises

ZOG FIRST POP WAVEFUNCTION!!!! ZOG FIRST POP WAVEFUNCTION!!!!

Zog's mate is not impressed with this Universe-altering accomplishment and whacks him for forgetting to wipe his bum with the bottom side of the leaves and not the top.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

That could be the point, maybe what we are seeing is a projection of sorts.

That being the case, so what?
Relativity says that everything that is, has, and will happen already did (and is, and will be). So what? What are you going to do about it if you think that's true, or if you think what we are seeing is a projection of sorts? Live your life differently? Einstein says you can't.

Lets not forget that everything is expanding, the entire universe is expanding as well as everything in it.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

No.
Space is expanding.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

No.
Space is expanding.

I think its everything dude, dark energy and dark matter are in everything including us, and everything is supposed to be expanding.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord Like this?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FormOfTheLord Like this?

LOL fun song I think the universal expansion has been detected at an atomic level so we arent able to see it, and scale all remains unchanged because everything is expanding equally.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I think the universal expansion has been detected at an atomic level so we arent able to see it, and scale all remains unchanged because everything is expanding equally.

Sort of a contradiction there, no?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I think the universal expansion has been detected at an atomic level so we arent able to see it, and scale all remains unchanged because everything is expanding equally.

Sort of a contradiction there, no?

www.askamathematician.com... hing-else-getting-bigger-too/

Here is a bit on the expansion its pretty interesting to me.

At the most fundamental level of reality, quarks combine to make up three pairs...'up/down', 'strange/charm', 'bottom/top'. Each of the six quarks have a fractional electric charge corresponding as so...'up, strange, and top' 2 thirds of electric charge each, and 'down, charm, and bottom' one third of electric charge each. Each quark has its 'antiquark' mirror opposite and is different only by its property.

Quarks are very rarely (if ever?) observed isolated from their partner, and are the only elementary particles that experience all the known four forces of 'electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear and strong nuclear'. The lightest pair of quarks are the 'up/down', whilst the other two paired heavier quarks are generally short-lived and rapidly decay into the lighter 'up/down' quarks through particle decay. Up/down quarks are the most stable form of elementary particle, and make up the bedrock and composition of protons and neutrons, and therefore, all of the many expressions of existence.

Here is where I supply the answer to the question I posed in my earlier post.

Quark relationships are based on a system of 'attraction' and 'repulsion' known as the 'strong interaction' which is mediated by 'gluons', each consisting of one 'colour charge' and one 'anticolour charge'. Quarks are constantly swapping gluons between themselves - rather like tennis players batting the ball back and forth - and this sets up a proportionate perturbation as each quark absorbs and emits a gluon. In other words a vibration of a certain magnitude and frequency. It is this vibration that is the key to the retention and sustaining of existences.

When a quark emits a gluon which is then absorbed by its partner, which then reciprocates by emitting a gluon in return, quarks are held within the most fundamental stability, and this stability allows for quarks to combine to make up protons and neutrons, the nuclei of atoms, and at this level, we are able to observe the many expressed forms of reality, leading to molecules and cells and organics and eventually life forms.

In dimensional terms reality is analogous to 1) quarks - equating to 1 dimension and combining to form atoms - 2 dimension combining to form molecules - 3 dimensions (the level where life forms abide)...and all occupying the same space, but separated by their non-subjection and interaction with weak and strong nuclear forces. Now the question to ask next is at what point does 'time' become a factor as the 'virtual' 4th dimension?

Anyone want to opine?

originally posted by: mbkennel
"The answer is, THE MOON WOULD NEVER EXIST IF CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS WEREN'T HERE TO LOOK AT IT.

At the fundamental level of reality, a universe can't be measured just like a web page can't be seen unless a CONSCIOUS
OBSERVER will experience it."

TIme: 150,000 B.C.

OK so the universe is 150,000 years old because that's the first time it was observed. But I don't see how that explains photons that have been traveling toward Earth before Earth even existed. Something must have existed before humans were on Earth to observe the universe, in order to send those photons our way. I'm sure the YE creationists already have some kind of nonsensical answer made up for that one to explain how the universe is only 6000 years old.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
www.askamathematician.com... hing-else-getting-bigger-too/

Here is a bit on the expansion its pretty interesting to me.

Which contradicts what you were saying and supports what Phage was saying. I see two things expanding:

1. Space
2. The heads of people who think the universe wouldn't exist without their consciousness.

For evidence of the latter one need only read this thread, like the quote mbkennel cited.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK so the universe is 150,000 years old because that's the first time it was observed. But I don't see how that explains photons that have been traveling toward Earth before Earth even existed. Something must have existed before humans were on Earth to observe the universe, in order to send those photons our way. I'm sure the YE creationists already have some kind of nonsensical answer made up for that one to explain how the universe is only 6000 years old.

That's like the tree in the forest.

The universe is a constuct, a program that gives you the illusion of time and space.

And you assume that humans are the first and only form of consciousness experiencing such a program, which is just that, an assumption.

a reply to: micpsi

Nor does it mean anything as simplistic as the conclusion that reality does not exist until it is observed. Rather, it means that the classical notion of a unique reality that exists independent of how it is observed fails for quantum objects. That's as far as it goes. All the silly hype that is being reported in science magazines and blogs on the internet should be ignored as hyperbole, misrepresentation and distortion. Macroscopic reality is NOT a quantum system, so stop making the mistake that it can be regarded as such.

What I see is not "silly hype" but inescapable conclusions.

These are are the building blocks of matter and reality we are talking about here. Can you explain how these experiments do not apply to reality and macroscopic world that is built from atomic and subatomic particles?

originally posted by: HotMale
The universe is a constuct, a program that gives you the illusion of time and space.

I see, and here I thought "The Matrix" was just a movie. Little did I know it was reality or that some people would actually think it was.

Now I'm wondering how many other fictional movies I've seen are also reality, but I just didn't know it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The article says nothing about the measurement needing to be performed by a human observer. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser also proves that non-conscious machines can perform measurements.

What? Non-conscious machines CAN perform measurements? We RELY on them to make measurements in these experiments since we can't see atomic and subatomic particles with the naked eye.

These devices become an extention of consciousness as soon as the rendered results are read by the experimenter.

Furthermore it only really applies to small quantum objects, large objects are essentially the same whether you are observing them or not.

Quantum particles are building blocks of matter and reality. This experiment is being done with atoms even.

And prove that "large" objects are the same when not observed. You can't. Experiments like these do prove that reality is not there when there is no consciousness to look at a particular part of it. Either that or future results travel back through time to affect a situation in the past.

Take your pick.

Either one is mindboggling.