is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

I like using this video to illustrate the phenomenon:

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
www.youtube.com...

Two things. One, I don't understand the difference between a particle and a wave. Something about predicting their location or whatever. I don't get it. Two, I don't understand how this photon property affects our entire reality. Light is light. Relatively little is light. I mean pure light.

reply to post by AbleEndangered


I don't understand, why are you posting this videos ?
Do you want to say religion is BS or what exactly ??

AfterInfinity
Two things. One, I don't understand the difference between a particle and a wave. Something about predicting their location or whatever. I don't get it. Two, I don't understand how this photon property affects our entire reality. Light is light. Relatively little is light. I mean pure light.

Light is photons. And photons are either waves or particles. Which one it is doesnt make sense.
So I cannot make the nonsensical make sense. If the top quantum physicists cant figure it out, I doubt I will be able to help you.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Ah! Thank you. And of what importance is the photon in our physical reality? What is its place?

Your entire life depends on photons, you can't live without them. They transfer energy from the sun to the plants on Earth (and indirectly, to the animals that eat them).

reply to post by KrzYma

You have no understanding of this at all. There is no dogma in this case. Science just says if you do experiment A you get result A-R, and if you do experiment B you get result B-R. In fact this is the one thing that everyone agrees on.

We have models that try to explain why the experiments happen this way, and they work well, but applying the models doesn't require a fundamental understanding of the nature of a photon anymore than applying gravitational models requires a fundamental understanding of the nature of gravity. In the case of gravity, Newton famously presented a model which worked perfectly for centuries, while clearly stating he did not presume to understand the cause of gravitational attraction.

So there is no religion, belief or dogma in saying 'here's the experiment we did and here's the results we got, and here's a model that predicts what will happen on other experiments', when all three have been proven true so far.

But ask real physicists what the true origin of wave-particle duality is, and they will probably tell you that the person who figures that out will get a Nobel prize. This is exactly the opposite of the religion the guy in the OP video is preaching, because he says he has the answer. So he's the religious one, but he's considered a crackpot by other physicists so if you're using him as a sample of a physicist, you picked a bad sample.

I guess there are a few crackpots in any field.

This is evidence, IMO, that consciousness directly affects our reality in ways science can not explain. Something I have known since my first experience with psychic abilities at age 14. We create our reality, think about all the living things on earth, none have the same powers of creation as mankind. Anything we can envision in our minds eye we can create if we put enough energy into it.

Richard Feynman on the Double Slit Paradox: Particle or Wave?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk
www.youtube.com...


Old School!

AbleEndangered
I like using this video to illustrate the phenomenon:

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
www.youtube.com...

this is exactly what I mean... why BS-ing us ??

electron is not an particle like a marble that splits, separates and interacts with itself.
electron is an small, point like based spherical potential difference
if you move it, it's potential behaves like a wave,

matter-wave duality is BS

reply to post by tigershark1988

Science doesn't fully understand consciousness yet.

But your claim that the above is evidence of such and such shows you don't understand the observer effect.

An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a single electron proved sufficient as an "observer" — there is no need for a conscious "observer".

So that proves it's got nothing to do with consciousness, though there are no shortage of "snake oil salesmen" peddling their "snake oil theories" in an effort to convince you otherwise.

I wrote a thread about observer effect here:

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

Your consciousness also has no effect on dead turkeys, though some crackpots think otherwise, as discussed in the thread.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Ah! Thank you. And of what importance is the photon in our physical reality? What is its place?

he has it backwards.
the photon behaves like a probability wave, until it is not only observed, but the observation is recorded as collected data, then it behaves like a particle. the act of recording the data, collapses the probability wave function.

undo

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Ah! Thank you. And of what importance is the photon in our physical reality? What is its place?

he has it backwards.
the photon behaves like a probability wave, until it is not only observed, but the observation is recorded as collected data, then it behaves like a particle. the act of recording the data, collapses the probability wave function.

And it wouldnt be the first time, lol. Nor the last.

AfterInfinity
Two things. One, I don't understand the difference between a particle and a wave. Something about predicting their location or whatever. I don't get it. Two, I don't understand how this photon property affects our entire reality. Light is light. Relatively little is light. I mean pure light.

it means you are creating a shared reality, locally, with your ability to record data.

KrzYma

MichaelPMaccabee
Any scientist worth their salt understands that -nothing- in science is taken on faith.

So no, science is not a religion. It is a tool of understanding based on exploration, experimentation, and explanation.

sure? if I say Einstein was wrong, QT is BS, wouldn't they crucify me ?
that's what I'm thinking...

Yes, I'm sure.

Certainly some will disagree with you, but unless their is undeniable empirical evidence, everyone in the debate should understand that their position rests on as of yet unproven conjecture. If you are dealing with people that do not understand that, you are talking to people not really worth talking.

OneManArmy

smurfy

OneManArmy

smurfy
Is this your video?

No. It has nothing to do with evolution or creationism.

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 01 Nov 2013 18:06:54 -05001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Well, I'm not so sure, that's why I put in both videos. In fairness for the OP and other posters they did not both appear at the same time, it took a moment or so to add the second URL.

the second video is the correct video.

But in answer to the question posed by the OP...

To some people yes science has become a sort of faith.
And to some people the Bible is the literal word of God.

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 01 Nov 2013 18:36:36 -05001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

I know the video the op desired to use, but the other is just as relevant, that's why I put it in. The thing is, the Op's is giving us a video in which the speaker gives the true definition of what we are.. and that is, we don't know what we are. Your other post is correct, all we do know is consciousness/thought/observation as an explanation for all around us, and so far everything we know is a vibration, a wave, and that includes light. Particles exist because of vibration and are also then a wave..well maybe not. To me vibration is the key, it can both build and dissasemble, perhaps both at the same time, all depending on whatever initiation.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


well.. i... never...
hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

MichaelPMaccabee

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

i asked a physicist. it was bordering on data overload.

as far as physicists go, have you seen this?
www.youtube.com...leonard susskind videos

KrzYma
matter-wave duality is BS

Calling it BS does not change the fact that particle-wave duality (assuming that is what you meant to say) is what we observe in reality. Indirectly you are calling reality bull#.

The claim the person in your video makes, that a conscious observer is required for this effect to happen is nonsense though. Consciousness has nothing to do with the experiment.

The current state is that there is an experiment in which we can both (consciously) determine which slit a photon went through and still get an interference pattern. (see this article)

reply to post by KrzYma

 

You have no understanding of this at all. There is no dogma in this case. Science just says if you do experiment A you get result A-R, and if you do experiment B you get result B-R. In fact this is the one thing that everyone agrees on.

We have models that try to explain why the experiments happen this way, and they work well, but applying the models doesn't require a fundamental understanding of the nature of a photon anymore than applying gravitational models requires a fundamental understanding of the nature of gravity. In the case of gravity, Newton famously presented a model which worked perfectly for centuries, while clearly stating he did not presume to understand the cause of gravitational attraction.

So there is no religion, belief or dogma in saying 'here's the experiment we did and here's the results we got, and here's a model that predicts what will happen on other experiments', when all three have been proven true so far.

But ask real physicists what the true origin of wave-particle duality is, and they will probably tell you that the person who figures that out will get a Nobel prize. This is exactly the opposite of the religion the guy in the OP video is preaching, because he says he has the answer. So he's the religious one, but he's considered a crackpot by other physicists so if you're using him as a sample of a physicist, you picked a bad sample.

I guess there are a few crackpots in any field.

edit on 1-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Thank you for explaining your point of seeing this.

I know this video is not the best, but on the end, most people get the information delivered in this way.
Some people repeating something they don't understand, convincing others it must be truth.

I read the same message in any documentary about science, all I see, every explanation on relativity or quantum hugi bugi or whatever
all are trying to convince me they are right. I don't think so

now, try to say loud in public E=MC2 is not from Einstein, or that bad word "anti-gravity"

science act like a religion

undo

MichaelPMaccabee

undo
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

well.. i... never...

hey one day i asked a scientist to explain string theory to me.

Did you ask a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist? There are important distinctions amongst the disciplines. This is my biggest gripe with people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. He is actually quite educated in his field, but when he starts to stray into areas like biology or anthropology, he makes a right dog's tooth of himself, and sets back popular scientific understanding with his musings.

i asked a physicist. it was bordering on data overload.

as far as physicists go, have you seen this?
www.youtube.com...leonard susskind videos

Physics isn't my bag. Biological Anthropology is more my style, which is why my gripe about Neil was so specific. Man, the times this guy has said something that has made me facepalm is embarrassingly high.