How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps this God guy is one of those rich princes who will give you riches, if you just transfer a little money to an account for him?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: SRPrime

There is also a secondary statement to be made, if we don't observe the particles with a measuring device, how can we determine it's a wave form? Oh.... that's right...

Bad experiment is bad, and the reproduction is just doing bad science a second time.

They determine whether or not it is behaving like a wave by the interference pattern that the photons display. The experiment originally started because they wanted to see which slit the photon would go through (since it was apparently going through both). Surely enough, when they placed a measuring device to see which slit the photon was going through, it began behaving like a particle. It is phenomenal, and demonstrates a core tenet of how our universe works and the role we have in it.

so you are concluding that this measuring device is tantamount to intelligent awareness? that a machine is consciously interfering with the behavior of the photon?

The major difficulty with quantum mechanics is its interpretation. The standard Copenhagen interpretation (named in honor of the home city of Niels Bohr, who first formulated it) takes a simple stance: the reason why photons sometimes seem like particles and sometimes like waves is that our experiments dictate what we see. In this view, photons are products of our experiments without independent reality, so if we're bothered by seemingly contradictory notions of wave and particle properties, it's because we're expecting something unreasonable of the universe.

One aspect is uncertainty. All experiments have uncertainty attached to them, simply because no equipment is perfect. Where quantum mechanics differs is by saying that even with perfect equipment, there will be a fundamental limit to how well a measurement can be performed. That uncertainty is directly connected to the wave-like character of matter and light: if you have a water wave traveling across the ocean, what is the precise position of the wave? How fast is it moving?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us what the minimum uncertainty for quantum waves must be: the smaller the uncertainty in position, the larger the uncertainty in momentum – and vice versa. Returning to the double-slit experiment, the wavelength (the size of the wave, in other words) depends on momentum, so the entire interference pattern is in effect a measurement of momentum.

One possible interpretation of the experiment is in line with the pilot wave model, formulated by Louis de Broglie with later additions by David Bohm. In this view, the wave function describes a statistical distribution that says what physical properties the point-like particle is likely to have – while the particles themselves may follow precise trajectories, even if those are very difficult to track. This certainly is consistent with what we see in detectors, although one might ask whether the pilot waves themselves can ever be directly observed – and if they can't, whether they can be said to be "real".

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic thought experiment, for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]."

en.wikipedia.org...

"difficulty predicting the outcome" is a crucial distinction from "actively influencing the outcome". your interpretation implies a certain degree of control, whereas the experiment itself clearly suggests lack of control, hence the confusion. it defies measurement as opposed to our directly manipulating the measurement.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

Observer effect

what is happening here might be compared to the "god particle" being incorrectly assumed to have some kind of divine property when in fact it was a simple joke that was taken out of context, much like the double slit experiment.

originally posted by: cooperton

It is phenomenal, and demonstrates a core tenet of how our universe works and the role we have in it.

no it really doesnt. it just confirms a preconceived notion that you will use any misinformation to prove.

a reply to: TzarChasm

so you are concluding that this measuring device is tantamount to intelligent awareness? that a machine is consciously interfering with the behavior of the photon?

I think that's his way of trying to work his way out of the corner he worked himself into. Claiming that the photons "know" they are being watched because a human used an instrument to watch them.

That's why I was asking how that detection was carried out. Trouble is, he still doesn't get it. Probably because he doesn't really know much about the experiment. Except for what Ramtha told him.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TzarChasm

so you are concluding that this measuring device is tantamount to intelligent awareness? that a machine is consciously interfering with the behavior of the photon?

I think that's his way of trying to work his way out of the corner he worked himself into. Claiming that the photons "know" they are being watched because a human used an instrument to watch them.

That's why I was asking how that detection was carried out. Trouble is, he still doesn't get it. Probably because he doesn't really know much about the experiment. Except for what Ramtha told him.

in the end, we all lose because we indulged in a battle we knew we could not win and also knew would not matter. precious time wasted in our finite existence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Philosophers and physicists certainly wonder what the observer effect means.

The Weizzman Institute has produced some interesting work on effecting interference with the amount of observation on the quantum scale.

Now the woo on the internet is certainly overstating what any of the quantum research means and draws unfounded conclusions but it certainly is a possibility consciousness has an effect on reality. It doesn't get any more clear the more that is learned what the nature of reality and how the quantum state effects the macro world and vice versus. As we think about things as bits of information or qubits and the how leptons and neutrinos fit in it certainly is a "weird" and "mystical" as some of the made up theories.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Philosophers and physicists certainly wonder what the observer effect means.

The Weizzman Institute has produced some interesting work on effecting interference with the amount of observation on the quantum scale.

Now the woo on the internet is certainly overstating what any of the quantum research means and draws unfounded conclusions but it certainly is a possibility consciousness has an effect on reality. It doesn't get any more clear the more that is learned what the nature of reality and how the quantum state effects the macro world and vice versus. As we think about things as bits of information or qubits and the how leptons and neutrinos fit in it certainly is a "weird" and "mystical" as some of the made up theories.

observation doesnt affect reality, only how we interpret it. the conclusions we draw and the ideas supporting those conclusions are what change based on the observation being exercised, which is more or less what the copenhagen interpretation says. i am oversimplifying obviously but most quantum theories are indeed an oversimplification of a field we have barely scratched. quantum mechanics is much like the dao. the most certain we can be is not certain at all.

a reply to: luthier

Philosophers and physicists certainly wonder what the observer effect means.

Philosophers maybe. Physicists not so much. It's not that complicated. The physical processes involved in observation will affect the outcome if those processes interact with what is being observed.

Which slit did the electron (yes, electron, not photon) go through? Lets take a look. How? By firing some photons at it. Guess what? The photons interact with the electron.

So it would seem that by trying to determine through which slit the electron passes, the motion of the electron is always sufficiently disturbed so that no interference pattern is observed. As far as it is known, any experiment that can be devised – either a real experiment or a gedanken (i.e. a thought) experiment – that involves directly observing through which slit the electrons pass always results in a disturbance in the motion of the electron sufficient for the interference pattern to be wiped out.

physics.mq.edu.au...


The "observer effect" can also apply on the macro scale. How hot is that cup of coffee? Put a thermometer in the cup to to find out. Unless the thermometer happens to be the same temperature it will affect the experiment.

The "observer effect" is not a mystery, it is a bother.

I usually describe quantum mechanics with golf balls and tennis balls.

Also did you know that if you leave the measuring device on long enough the dots build up to the interference pattern.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier

Philosophers and physicists certainly wonder what the observer effect means.

Philosophers maybe. Physicists not so much. It's not that complicated. The physical processes involved in observation will affect the outcome if those processes interact with what is being observed.

Which slit did the electron (yes, electron, not photon) go through? Lets take a look. How? By firing some photons at it. Guess what? The photons interact with the electron.

So it would seem that by trying to determine through which slit the electron passes, the motion of the electron is always sufficiently disturbed so that no interference pattern is observed. As far as it is known, any experiment that can be devised – either a real experiment or a gedanken (i.e. a thought) experiment – that involves directly observing through which slit the electrons pass always results in a disturbance in the motion of the electron sufficient for the interference pattern to be wiped out.

physics.mq.edu.au...


The "observer effect" can also apply on the macro scale. How hot is that cup of coffee? Put a thermometer in the cup to to find out. Unless the thermometer happens to be the same temperature it will affect the experiment.

The "observer effect" is not a mystery, it is a bother.

Physicists and mathematicians in fact think about these things quite often. The double slit test is not where we are any longer quantum computing is accelerating quickly because of the amount of research across the world filling in these gaps. Israel alone has invested a lot.

Not only electrons, but their copies are part of the system. And it's a wee bit more complex than you are leading on.

Unless you can explain the 4 th and 5 th dimension and how the leptons are interacting.

a reply to: luthier

Not only electrons, but their copies are part of the system. And it's a wee bit more complex than you are leading on.

The observer effect is not.

Quantum oddities are complex indeed, but I did not address that.

Unless you can explain the 4 th and 5 th dimension and how the leptons are interacting.

Has this been observed?

a reply to: Phage

I guess if you are not going to expand the observer effect in quantum mechanics you are correct.

If you believe we understand the way we can limit interference through different process of observation you would be incorrect. If we understood the observer effect in QM we would already have most of the model done and electronics would be further along.

Basically. The quantum hall effect observed the trace "shadow" as predicted.

The math is already there. Our technology limits our observational ability.

a reply to: luthier

I guess if you are not going to expand the observer effect in quantum mechanics you are correct.

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we understood the observer effect in QM we would already have most of the model done and electronics would be further along.

We do understand it. There is no way to observe a quantum (be it electron or photon or any other) without interacting with it. It is that interaction which affects the outcome, not the observation. We can calculate the hell out of what will happen but as soon as we interact we bugger it up.

Basically. The quantum hall effect observed the trace "shadow" as predicted.

And that has what, exactly, to do with the observer effect?

a reply to: Phage

The observer effect may be understood as a concept but again it is not understood in terms of what the effect of different methods of observation have on interaction.

I also disagree that we bugger up, that really is a glaze over of the complexity of what making observations on the quantum scale are and mean.

Why did I bring up spinorial matter? Didn't you mention electrons? How are they passing through the slot? Are they passing through anything?

Why did they make at least three copies and where did those go running off to?

Just saying we are learning how to control the observer effect to generate the outcome we want and learning algorithms to navigate probability to our prediction.

But it's weird. No need to relate God or aliens physics itself is strange enough to be mystified.

www.pond5.com...

a reply to: luthier

Just saying we are learning how to control the observer effect to generate the outcome we want and learning algorithms to navigate probability to our prediction.

Your sentences are difficult for me to parse. Are you saying that we can observe quanta without interacting or are you saying that we have ways of overcoming the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics? That we can know both the velocity and position of a quantum?

a reply to: Phage

I am saying we are learning how to overcome probability by controlling the nature of the observation and the geometry withing the electromagnetic forces

a reply to: luthier

I am saying we are learning how to overcome probability by controlling the nature of the observation and the geometry withing the electromagnetic forces

I don't think so.

a reply to: Phage

Not a string theory guy?

a reply to: luthier

Interesting math, I suppose. So is calculus.

But so far it doesn't seem be getting very far in terms of supplanting quantum mechanics.

a reply to: Phage

Do you read papers out of the weizzman institute in the expiremental physics and quantum computing research?

The predictions and discoveries of sub atomic particles in the last 20 years is incredible.

iopscience.iop.org...

This is the paper I was referencing with geometry.

a reply to: luthier

That's going to take a bit of cogitation.

On first blush it doesn't seem to involve string "theory" nor any experimental evidence. I'll start by getting a handle on what "probability transfer" means.