Quantum Physics to the extreme - out of sight, out of mind

You might not believe this but as you sit there and read this post, the objects behind you do not exist. Right now they are in their most primal form - a whirling field of energized atoms. As you pan around the room with your head, these energies instantly come together as observable objects. This all happens on the fly and at such speed we humans cannot sense it. According to the concept of Quantum Physics this is true. We create reality as we know it. Of course there are many rules and intricacies to the process but if you're alone without any measurement tools, this is how our world collapses and restructures itself. I believe a rare few individuals in our world have the ability to manipulate this energy to their will - much like how the comic book character Doctor Strange does. He can manipulate matter and transform this quantum energy into solid objects, He isn't a wizard, just a master of quantum mechanics.

Hi,

Many thanks for this link - think it was pitched at the right level.

Seems to bear out Julian Barbour's theory of no time or movement - just relative configurations that we somehow mentalyl string together.

Peace!

This is a bit of a stretch for me to believe. Saying that if something is not observed, it is non-existent ?? External solid objects are holograms ??
It seems a little far fetched. What was dude saying about electrons? I keep thinking about things which are unobserved, such as a power lines... power travels through the regardless of whether it is measured or not. What happens when the observation is performed not by the brain, but with some external instrument. If the earth or any object collapsed and restructures for any amount of time... even if the brain cannot detect it, something other than a brain could. They say the brain is capable of handling millions of transactions every second, yet it is not fast enough to detect quantum collapse and restructuring?? That part just didn't sense to me. Even if were true, at some point, it would be detectable. Seems like you would have to scientifically test this before you could make such a claim. Saying something non-existent if you don't observe it, is a little like saying "we have no clue". I believe that atoms are more tightly bound than the narrator describes, and the atoms that make up solid objects are more certain, and less ambiguous in their position.

On behalf of tauristercus.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy

Quantum Physics is a very difficult subject to grasp. The moment you try to scientifically prove or measure the concept, the mechanics of it fall apart. It's sort of an oxymoron - you really have to take a leap of faith to experience this fringe science.

Observation in quantum mechanics does not mean a guy staring at something, it means interaction with another particle, for example a photon. So objects behind you certainly DO exist while you are not looking.

Things get interesting when trying to describe what particles really do when nothing is looking - between interactions.

S+F!

I absolutely love quantum physics/mechanics and I find the concepts truly amazing.

"What The Bleep Do We Know?" is a fantastic film even though some people have dismissed its contents as pseudo-science. It describes the possibility that we actively create our own realities and I think its entirely believable to a point.

Do things exist only when they are observed? Is it possible that our brain cannot process information fast enough and that our realities are constructed at light speed literally before our eyes?

Originally posted by mapsurfer_
They say the brain is capable of handling millions of transactions every second, yet it is not fast enough to detect quantum collapse and restructuring??

Well I can't say yes or no for sure, I don't think anyone can.

But I watched a program on TV the other night and apparently our brains only process 1/3rd of the information taken in through our eyes.

I'm not really a fan or a believer in theories that state we have spirit dimensions, multiple dimensions etc but I do think its definately possible that there are things going on in front of our eyes that we cannot see either because of their frequency or speed.

Is it possible that so called paranormal activity is actually the interaction of forces that we cannot see with our eyes? i.e. Ghosts or the activity we attribute to them are not actually sentient beings rather they are interactions of the universes cosmic forces that are affected by various factors.

[edit on 17/3/10 by Death_Kron]

Neat thoughts, but I don't buy it. Not the way that it's explained here. I MIGHT buy that unobserved objects are in flux, but you can't make a distinction between conscious and unconscious observation. If I hurl equipment into space, I'll get pictures, samples of materials with very conventional atomic structures, etc. Chances are no one is directly observing anything under the cloud layer of Venus, yet we know a lot about it.

A loophole could be that ANY consciousness is continuously observing everything in the universe and therefore keeping everything cohesive. But then why hypothicate that there any instances when reality can be in flux?

If no distinction between conscious and unconscious observer is made then there is no way to collect the abnormal evidence, so again, why devise such a theory? I could say that my buffalo chicken is actually sweet and sour flavored until I taste it. Sure, who can prove otherwise? But chances are it's BS.

I'm not sure how to fully articulate my meaning, so hopefully my rambling is enough to give an idea...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by an0maly33]

Well i got a question, if nothing exists when we arn't observing it then how did the universe come about?

[edit on 17-3-2010 by jonnyc55]

Some of these quantum guys would have done the world more good as science fiction writers than physicists. It's true we don't perceive the world as it really is but the act of observing changes nothing. To believe for one minute that our limited senses define reality is the pinnacle of egomania. You're all living in the fantasy world between your ears. That's the only place the hologram/illusion exists.



I will now alter reality by making the atoms on your computer screen bend to my will. Is the image above moving yet?

I really hate to burst people's bubbles, I really do, but this is not "quantum mechanics"... it is "spiritual mechanics".

There is really nothing that mysterious about quantum mechanics. The word "quantum" simply refers to the smallest unit possible. Quantum mechanics then simply means the mechanics (physics) of the smallest particles possible. But humans have a problem when trying to understand such a microscopic world: since we are made of matter, we cannot physically observe matter at such a small scale.

Instead, we rely on theoretical concepts and indirect results. We cannot 'see' an electron to know where it is or how fast it is moving, for example, but we can bounce a photon off it and observe the photon. That gives us some information on that electron, but it also changes the electron by the mere act of trying to observe it. Imagine an invisible beach ball sitting on the water; if we throw rocks at that beach ball, we can see where the rocks bounce off it, but every time a rock hits it, it moves. This is what led to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is more an explanation of why present technology (or indeed, any foreseeable technology) cannot answer our questions satisfactorily than it is an absolute physical law.

The simple truth is we do not know much more about quantum (smallest particle) mechanics than we do know. But modern science, rather than being able to simply state "We don't know but we are studying it", finds the idea that something is not understood abhorrent. So we get learned individuals trying to explain the unexplainable, just as primitive men once considered fire 'magical'. Oh, they use big words and mathematical assumptions that appear intelligent, but every time I hear something like the video posted, I am reminded of an old saying in engineering: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t."

"Dark matter" is an excellent example of this. Astronomers noted that some galaxies appeared to be spinning at a speed which was not consistent with what we know about gravitational forces. In order to explain why these galaxies were spinning too fast for physics to explain, they came up with the concept of 'dark matter', matter that could only be observed by its gravitational effects by definition. No one has ever seen dark matter; no one has ever observed dark matter; no one has ever been able to even define what dark matter is (aside from the convenient definition above). Yet, some scientists are absolutely convinced that dark matter really exists. To allow for other explanations means that perhaps we do not understand gravitational forces as well as we thought, a horrible concept.

Jonnyc55 had an excellent point: if matter does not exist until observed, then how did the Universe form without anyone around to observe it? And I will add, if nothing exists until it is observed, then why is the tree outside my house always there, always the same, no matter who is doing the observing? It seems to me that if I left and someone else came up and observed the tree, it would 're-associate itself' into something at least slightly different...

It would appear there is a very fine line between science and religion indeed.

TheRedneck

I just want to point out that this question is a very old one indeed; not necessarily just a result of quantum physics (though quantum physics does bring similar issues up legitimately). This issue is actually the one that defined "modern" from "medieval" thinking and probably paved the way for much of current scientific methodology. Chances are this one is still going to be asked and considered and debated long after we are all dead. I refer you (the reader) to Bishop Berkeley:

Bishop Berkley

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I
Jonnyc55 had an excellent point: if matter does not exist until observed, then how did the Universe form without anyone around to observe it? And I will add, if nothing exists until it is observed, then why is the tree outside my house always there, always the same, no matter who is doing the observing? It seems to me that if I left and someone else came up and observed the tree, it would 're-associate itself' into something at least slightly different...



TheRedneck

The simplest questions are often the best. Perhaps a simple answer in the form of a another question: Why assume anything exists at all?

The question appears to hypothetically postulate that nothing exists (unless observed) and then goes on the question why it is that something exists. It is similar to asking why is the sky blue when it is not blue.

I might also point out that assuming that the multiverse is created is an assumption on its own.

Whether or not you agree with the premise in the OP, there is one fact that everyone can easily understand, but which is (to me) even more far out.

The fact is, objects in this reality, your body, and even solid objects are about 99.999% empty space. That is to say, the atom (of all types make every object around you) is made of a nucleus and a few orbiting electrons. Compared to the orbit of the electron, the nucleus is tiny tiny tiny. And the electron(s) is even tinier still.

So the atom is mostly empty space.

Do you understand what that means? "Real objects" are almost non-existent. They are just vibrations of energy, and it's that vibrating energy that prevents your hand from passing through your desk, or you through your chair.

That's a very strange fact.

Originally posted by genma
You might not believe this but as you sit there and read this post, the objects behind you do not exist. Right now they are in their most primal form - a whirling field of energized atoms. As you pan around the room with your head, these energies instantly come together as observable objects. This all happens on the fly and at such speed we humans cannot sense it. According to the concept of Quantum Physics this is true. We create reality as we know it. Of course there are many rules and intricacies to the process but if you're alone without any measurement tools, this is how our world collapses and restructures itself. I believe a rare few individuals in our world have the ability to manipulate this energy to their will - much like how the comic book character Doctor Strange does. He can manipulate matter and transform this quantum energy into solid objects, He isn't a wizard, just a master of quantum mechanics.

Thats funny because i know for a fact there is a movie playing behind me. . . If everything behind me is in some "super position" how is that the sound waves are propagating through uncollapsed wave functions?

Oh and i just heard my cat jump off the bed or dresser. So she is definately alive and not both dead and alive. . . Quantum physics has once again been misinterpreted and slung out onto the science board. Oh the humanity

And atoms aren't empty space. . .they are filled with space matter. . .

Space matter is filled everywhere in the universe. All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter.

physics-edu.org...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by constantwonder]

reply to post by liquidself

The simplest questions are often the best. Perhaps a simple answer in the form of a another question: Why assume anything exists at all?

Existence would appear to be self-evident. If something is observed by multiple observers, then it follows logically that it must exist.

The question appears to hypothetically postulate that nothing exists (unless observed) and then goes on the question why it is that something exists. It is similar to asking why is the sky blue when it is not blue.

While I do not get your reference to the sky being blue, I must acknowledge the validity of your premise. It is indeed an apt investigation to question why something exists. The only problem I have is when this existence itself is questioned; that is more the realm of philosophy than of science. Obviously, if we can observe a thing, that thing is observable and thus exists.

I might also point out that assuming that the multiverse is created is an assumption on its own.

We have no observation of a 'multiverse', only mathematical theory. There fore, it is illogical to assume that such a thing exists. It is also illogical to assume that such a thing does not exist. The correct answer is that we have no observation at this time of such a thing.

The very word itself is somewhat of an oxymoron. 'Universe' is from two root words which mean 'one, singular' and 'everything'. Thus, Universe is the entire singular composition of everything that exists. 'Multiverse' on the other hand, would mean "many everythings", an illogical concept in itself. A more correct term (although a loosely interpreted one) would be "planes of existence".

Also, I did not mention that the Universe was "created", only that it "formed", another self-evident observation. If something exists, then it must either have always existed (an incomprehensible concept) or it somehow formed into existence. Please, this is not a thread on "my religion is better than yours". It is a thread on science: observable, provable, repeatable science.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by liquidself

The simplest questions are often the best. Perhaps a simple answer in the form of a another question: Why assume anything exists at all?

Existence would appear to be self-evident. If something is observed by multiple observers, then it follows logically that it must exist.

In my experience there is very little in this world that is self-evident. Existence may be obvious but it is impossible to prove; it must use part of itself at every point in order to prove itself to itself. It does not logically follow that if multiple obsesrvers observe something that it must exist.

The question appears to hypothetically postulate that nothing exists (unless observed) and then goes on the question why it is that something exists. It is similar to asking why is the sky blue when it is not blue.

While I do not get your reference to the sky being blue, I must acknowledge the validity of your premise. It is indeed an apt investigation to question why something exists. The only problem I have is when this existence itself is questioned; that is more the realm of philosophy than of science. Obviously, if we can observe a thing, that thing is observable and thus exists.

Quantum physics brings just this kind of naive realism into doubt. Base assumptions about reality do affect the science we do. Particle/wave duality brings this issue up legitimately - its why Schrodinger came up with his famous thought experiment. ( The "sky... blue" thing was just an example of a nonsensical question; like "If I can t throw a rock , how far can I throw it?" ).

I might also point out that assuming that the multiverse is created is an assumption on its own.

We have no observation of a 'multiverse', only mathematical theory. There fore, it is illogical to assume that such a thing exists. It is also illogical to assume that such a thing does not exist. The correct answer is that we have no observation at this time of such a thing.

I could have said universe here but I prefer the term multiverse. I think your statements are very accurate but that they will also equally apply to the term 'universe'.

The very word itself is somewhat of an oxymoron. 'Universe' is from two root words which mean 'one, singular' and 'everything'. Thus, Universe is the entire singular composition of everything that exists. 'Multiverse' on the other hand, would mean "many everythings", an illogical concept in itself. A more correct term (although a loosely interpreted one) would be "planes of existence".

The "uni" from universe is certainly singular as you say or one; but the "-verse" does not mean "everything" (if I have misconstrued from your statement here I apologize) it is:

verse

• noun 1 writing arranged with a metrical rhythm. 2 a group of lines that form a unit in a poem or song. 3 each of the short numbered divisions of a chapter in the Bible or other scripture.

— ORIGIN Latin versus ‘a turn of the plough, a furrow, a line of writing’, from vertere ‘to turn’.

- and so is not an oxymoron. Further , it seems to me to be somewhat subjective as to whethere one would say "universe" or "multiverse" at this point in tilme. However, you are correct if you are assuming I am making some kind of reference to M theory. I do like your "planes of existence" though that was thoughtful.

Also, I did not mention that the Universe was "created", only that it "formed", another self-evident observation. If something exists, then it must either have always existed (an incomprehensible concept) or it somehow formed into existence. Please, this is not a thread on "my religion is better than yours". It is a thread on science: observable, provable, repeatable science.

Not clear on why the distinction between "created" and "formed" Perhaps this is not so self-evident. There is nothing incomprehensible about the idea that something may always have existed. There is no internal contradiction in the idea - many cultures the world over have had this kind of belief. I m not sure what is meant by "my religion is better than yours". I have not made any religious assertions nor am I trying to prove mine is better. It is my own tendency to pursue a line of inquiry no matter where it goes; regardless of what discipline it happens to be labelled as. It was your post that brought up the question of first things; this question is examined in science (via cosmology); in religion and in philosophy. Quite probably alll three are relevant and have somethign to say. You can t corrall a question like this into a corner and expect it to behave.

reply to post by liquidself

Existence may be obvious but it is impossible to prove; it must use part of itself at every point in order to prove itself to itself. It does not logically follow that if multiple obsesrvers observe something that it must exist.

If one wishes to remove the reality of existence from the realm of science, the result is that nothing can be 'proven'. It makes all of science moot if nothing is seen as 'real'. One cannot, for instance, make a single measurement of an object and consider it accurate since the tool used to measure it is not even proven to exist.

There has to be some base of reference. That base, in its purest form, is existence. We exist; we are real. The measuring cup is real. The tape measure is real. The calipers, the voltmeter, the optical sensors are real. While it cannot be proven without using circular logic, the extension of them not being real is that nothing exists, ergo, nothing matters.

Therefore, to claim that existence is not actual is to claim that there is no such thing as science. That means there is nothing to debate.

Quantum physics brings just this kind of naive realism into doubt. Base assumptions about reality do affect the science we do. Particle/wave duality brings this issue up legitimately - its why Schrodinger came up with his famous thought experiment.

I'm sorry, but Schrodinger was the forefather of quasi-science. His experiment proved nothing and made no conclusions. He simply envisioned a situation in such a way that it could not be proven either way. That is not an experiment, nor is it science. It is philosophy.

Science is a search for knowledge. Schrodinger (and those who followed in his footsteps) searched for ways to avoid knowledge.

The "uni" from universe is certainly singular as you say or one; but the "-verse" does not mean "everything"

You are correct in that "-verse" actually means "that which turns", but that also refers to everything in motion. And since everything in the Universe is in motion of some sort, it also infers "everything".

universe
1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.))

Source: dictionary.reference.com...

However, you are correct if you are assuming I am making some kind of reference to M theory.

Membrane Theory (or Magic Theory or Madness Theory, depending on which physicist you are speaking to) is only the latest mathematical abstract of a long line of such. I am waiting to see if it holds up to scrutiny, or if, like it's predecessors, it will contain as many holes as a wheel of Swiss cheese.

Not clear on why the distinction between "created" and "formed" Perhaps this is not so self-evident. There is nothing incomprehensible about the idea that something may always have existed. There is no internal contradiction in the idea - many cultures the world over have had this kind of belief.

The reference to religion was in response to your wording. "Created" implies a Creator. I used the word "formed" specifically in order to leave religion out of this discussion.

I disagree that the notion of infinite existence is so easily grasped. We know, for example, that if one extrapolates the movements of all the astronomical bodies observed back in time, we reach a point where they all coalesce into the same area. This is, of course, the reasoning behind the "Big Bang" Theory. But it also indicates that something must have came before that point in time. What that something is, we cannot say, for our knowledge of the interaction of matter in such close proximity is woefully lacking at this time.

The fact that religious peoples have believed in an infinite existence is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not debating a religion, but rather a supposed science. While I do happen to believe that true science must bear out true religion and vice-versa, that is not the topic here.

It was your post that brought up the question of first things; this question is examined in science (via cosmology); in religion and in philosophy. Quite probably alll three are relevant and have somethign to say. You can t corrall a question like this into a corner and expect it to behave.

Actually, you cannot debate a subject, even such a one as this, in both the scientific and the religious/philosophical arenas. Science requires by its very nature concrete proof; the others do not.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by fanthorpe
On behalf of tauristercus.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy

fanthorpe ... my thanks and much appreciated for the re-link to my thread which was along very similar lines

And I agree with constantwonder's post that objects behind you most certainly DO exist even though you may not be able to see them. They most certainly do not exist in some kind of quantum limbo until you decide to interact with them.
I guarantee that if I sneaked up behind you and slapped you on the back of the head, that you most certainly would feel my presence even though you didn't see or know that I was behind you !

[edit on 18/3/10 by tauristercus]

reply to post by TheRedneck

Existence would appear to be self-evident.

Ahh, the premise for the introduction of one of the seminal lectures on Phenomonology:



The thing is, extending things like quantum entanglement above the level of the quantum, as the earlier video tried to do in several places, is not sustainable.

The 'guru' at about 7'10" got it right, when he said that attempting to perceive the infinite with the finite limits of our senses is not going to work, we can only do our best. And our best tells us that the wall behind us is solid, even if it is mostly made up of the space between atoms.

In other words reality is defined by our chemical brain's interpretation of the sensory data presented to it. Our brain can train itself to ignore or reinterpret that sensory data in 'unusual' ways, but it is limited by its own dependence on the 'collective sub-quantum' (I just made that term up, intending it to reflect a similar idea to Freud's 'collective subconscious'). If the brain were to somehow get the 'outside world' to violate those rules, it would cease to function itself, because it is itself the 'outside world'. Recursion is a wondrous thing.

It was good to see Robert Allen Wilson in there too. We don't see nearly enough of him (may he Rest in Peace; so it goes). He was right too. The "reality tunnels" we make for ourselves are not the same thing as "reality". Our personal "reality tunnels" are dependent on the rules inherent in the 'collective sub-quantum'. In the same way that a chess playing computer can produce many different chess games, it will never be able to suddenly start playing mah-jong.

So how did Bomb #20 solve the phenomenology problem?




[edit on 18/3/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 18/3/2010 by rnaa]