It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is what I have been trying to explain to a lot of people, but they don't seem to understand.
Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by cointelprotroll
Who's to say Quantum Consciousness isn't controlling matter?
Furthermore, who's to say Quantum Consciousness isn't God?
I keep saying, God is much more simple than any of us know, and so much more complex than any of us have dreamed...spirituality is science we haven't caught up to yet, but it seems that we are drawing closer. Religion continues to defy science because we are convinced that we already know everything about spirituality. When we accept that we aren't even close to such knowledge, we will make progress. Ignorance stems from believing you already know the answer when you haven't collected all the facts.
I await the day that science and God come to terms with one another, and spirituality and science become one. Because they actually are...we just haven't discovered it yet.edit on CTuesdayam070725f25America/Chicago15 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FenderWolf
So, lets think about the old saying: "A Watched Pot Never Boils."
The water knew. It knew all along.
Originally posted by theukbloke
reply to post by intrptr
NP, you do get the fact that when they try and observe the particle (not marbles, that was just for clarity) that it only travels through one slot and does not create an interference pattern! but take away any observation methods other than the pattern recorder and it returns to create an interference pattern from One particle. In the second video the experiment used a laser that created a single photon - it is possible to do, so light speed was reached with the same conclusion only it got really weird when they tried to hide the fact it was being watched.
It is here that students must convince themselves that this counting rate indicates the bulb is indeed dim enough so that only one photon at a time reaches the photomultiplier. Here are two possible conceptual arguments, both use the fact that the distance from single slit to detector is close to one meter.
1. Using time of flight measurements: A photon traveling 3x10 to the 8th m/s will navigate the one meter path from single slit to detector in roughly 3 nanoseconds. Our counter indicates a time of flight of 10-6th seconds or 1000 nanoseconds. On average, therefore, there is a photon in flight between the single slit and the photomultiplier for only about 3 ns out of every 1000 ns. This means that for 99.7% of the time, there are "no" photons in flight, while for only 0.3% of the time there is "one" photon in flight in the apparatus. The probability of there being two photons in flight simultaneously is thus negligible. All of the interference effects observed in the apparatus can thus be comfortable ascribed to the behavior of individual photons, coming through the single slit one at a time!
Using frequency measurements: The flight path is roughly one meter. If we were to visualize an arrangement such that a new photon would be released only after the one in transit arrived at the photomultiplier then the photons would be 1 meter apart. This would mean that the time between photons would be 1m/3x10 to the 8th m/s. The photon count rate would then be 3 x 10 to the 8th photons per second.
Originally posted by FenderWolf
So, lets think about the old saying: "A Watched Pot Never Boils."
The water knew. It knew all along.