Author
Topic: I really enjoy this video (Read 10611 times)

I know there are people who will find this completely ridiculous. (I want my studies to take me into understanding the actual equations) What I find enthralling is that the theory here would reconcile - pretty much everything. The video includes Quantum physicists and buddhist monks (I think one of them is hindu as well).There was another interview with another physicist who said (I'm paraphrasing- I dont remember the EXACT quote) "we didn't set out trying to prove this, this is just where the numbers took us"

Very interesting, but a bit muddy. I think they could have made their point a little better.

Having a degree in both Physics and Mathematics, I would say I know a little (literally) about quantum mechanics. I have had a course or two on it. I never before thought how quantum mechanics relates to actual perception. It got me thinking.

I think the problem with this line of thinking is that we use MATHEMATICS to try to explain the world. The MATH that best describes what is happening in the universe also states that parallel universes exist, and that things don't really exist until you measure them. Now, I'm not saying that the math is right or wrong, I'm just saying that it might be our feeble attempt at applying mathematics to try to explain something that simply cannot be explained by mathematics. I think it is generally accepted that this math breaks down at macroscopic scales.

Schrödinger wrote:One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.[3]The above text is a translation of two paragraphs from a much larger original article that appeared in the German magazine Naturwissenschaften ("Natural Sciences") in 1935.[4]Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begins to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states; yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[5]Note that no charge of gunpowder is mentioned in Schrödinger's setup, which uses a Geiger counter as an amplifier and hydrocyanic poison instead of gunpowder. The gunpowder had been mentioned in Einstein's original suggestion to Schrödinger 15 years before, and apparently Einstein had carried it forward to the present discussion.

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but I can't clearly understand what Schroedinger was illustrating with zombiecat. Unless it's a discussion of time itself - where S is saying that time is strictly linear and there is no perspective which can exist outside of linear time. If that's what the cat is about then I think I understand the argument. I can wholeheartedly agree that to us - the cat is absolutely alive or dead and never both - but (hypothetically - I havent studied enough math to prove any of this) - hypothetically another being capable of perceiving time (from outside the influence of time) as something other than a straight and irreversible line could perceive the cat as unborn, alive, and all the stages of it's life simultaneously, and dead.

I can also agree that math is insufficient to explain the universe in its entirety, but I can't say that isn't because we don't know enough math yet.

unrelated to the zombie cat: I also stumbled into a neat explanation of 'the observation problem', and the experiment which demonstrated it.I kept hitching on the assertion that something unobserved ceases to 'be' in the state it was observed in (I kept wondering how they could know by 'looking away' that anything had changed, or if it was just somebody's silly assertion that 'if I can't see it it isn't there, because I can't see it'.)I also heard a few things from nonmath camps about matter having an innate 'intelligence' - a state of simply 'knowing of itself what it is'hope you enjoy - I found this video pretty neato as well.Dr Quantum - quantum physics simplified!

OK, so let me explain the cat problem as this: If a radioactive atom has a chance of decaying, and we are not watching it, we say that it is in TWO possible states (the superposition of both decayed and not decayed). The act of watching it makes it choose one. MATHEMATICALLY this is true. Now if we tie a cat's life to the state of the atom, and don't watch the atom, we still say that the atom is in two superimposed states, but the can't can't be a superposition of both dead and alive! Clearly the cat is either dead or alive.

I think that this paradox is explained by "parallel universes" where both exist at the same time. So in order to help explain this paradox, you need something weird, like parallel universes. I don't buy it. I just think that we are using MATH to try to explain what truly can't be explained with math.

Thanks for the clarification. I remember something about the parallel dimension/Universe being explained by bizarre and sporadic behavior of quantum particles like random (displacement?) and jumping (like ricocheting?) about for no apparent reason. I don't remember whose Idea it was but someone postulated that there were forces or objects on planes outside our measurement (range?) acting on the particles. (it may have been on the first video I posted, I'm not sure.) I do like the thought of using math to try and explain a measured event rather than using math to hypothesize an unobserved event. I usually have more questions on seeing a presentation like the two I posted; but I guess I'm one of those who likes being nagged by a question like that as much as being presented with any number of answers.

It is a fun book that is well written (at least the 1st chapter is) :-D

Logged

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."--Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."--Thomas Jefferson

I read about as much as could follow and beyond that, even imagine. The simple question I have is (and forgive me if I missed this) did any of these genesis of mathematics continued to the next step and:

See if the observers thought could accurately increase or even focus the matter to a particular location (left or right) through the two particle paths.

My point, if a mere thought can direct micro-cell structured events, how far fetch is it to believing Far Eastern Ways - after all for more than 5000 years, their acupuncture points are EXACT to a human body's 3D MRI of taken today.

I have practiced taichi 25 years, I know that our own matter exists outside of our body, you can feel energy translate from your hands as if a beech-ball is expanding in it. You can throw it away and catch it, toss it about like a toy airplane. That energy FLOWS through cells and exists NOT ONLY BEYOND cell structure, but of course into the pool of matter it swims in. We are all connected, We say bees are social creatures, so are humans and I believe in a deeper way, all things (since made of matter) is the same organism not unlike a heart and a kidney and a liver lived in a single human body, our matter is just a pimple of the matter that exsists around it.

I think it funny that most people think in the WHAT'S SMALL (and this is a great topic) but also, WHAT'S BIG? It is obvious that the only way we know how old something is at the end of our deep space vision (Hubble) beyond doing the math times the location and direction of a new deep object turns DAY1 back a few million and billion years.

I'm only common man, but if we had a telescope that could see 1 BILLION TIMES more powerful than HUBBLE, won't we likely see that the star systems "NOW PROVE" our Universe is a billion TIMES older than we first thought. Could be, no one knows where it ends (or begins) if you are more science minded.

Forgive my numbers if they are wrong, I read something the other day - August 2010 is the first time in 837 years since August had 5 Sundays 5 Mondays and 5 Tuesdays. Pretty cool huh? I add this bit of trivia to say the one fact as we see science get closer to God, not further away. If God (any God will do for the sake of discussion) if God can simply SPEAK and the world's change, and the stars in the sky look different. Doesn't quantum science have a thin line from Science and a God-like explanation just behind?!

I often think that 2000 years ago, people KNOWING ALL THE TECHNOLOGY THERE WAS TO KNOW wrote the words of the Bible from the hand of God. I think of the lingo we use today and wonder what will our culture think 2000 years from now.

I think if you took any high-tech device from today, from a monster-truck to an mp3 player to show someone whould be like possessing magic, imagine an airplane flying over in year 52AD. I know if the only skills I had was to keep the fire going and hunt food, or have a job as a shopkeeper, and I saw such wonder, I could imagine it was Godly, but man made those, but the word of the day "Thought" has been spoken to men. What Doctors who do the magic of God using their hands and tools. Procedures deemed too risky 20 years ago are done routinely today. Man's imagination is also known as FREE WILL, the only thing God gave us which makes us mortal. We can decide to work at the family business of become the greatest heart surgeon on Earth, invent equipment that will be magic EVEN by today's standards.

Knowing that the smallest particles are brainless pieces, almost as small as nothing, but they are INSPIRED by thought and observation. The stuff that EVERYTHING is made of "collectively" was explained so well by Depak Chopra, loosely says if you sat in a spaceship the size of a neutron, you could travel from your room through the leg of a coffee table with no other atom in site for over 40 relative miles. You'd fly a long and rarely have to ever even change your path because it's all most all EMPTY SPACE!

I guess I'll lastly cover Empty Space, I wonder if it is the STUFF in the space that matters (as is commonly thought) but/or is it what exists in the empty space that really matters? Sort of the largest vital organism in the human body DOESN'T necessarilly belong to the body and can be completely removed - it is the BLOOD, blood is the real you, everything that keeps you alive flows through your blood, everything. So if we exist only through our blood, that doesn't it make sense that our souls/conscious/ being/whatever MUST exist in the blood and our blood is something we can share for health and any reason. People give blood, I wonder, what else may transfer that we haven't even figured out yet. Gonna stop before I start thread or skip around too much :lau:

Please enjoy the forum, and if it has helped you in any way, we hope that a small donation can be made to support our FULLY member supported forum. You will never see advertisements here, and that is because of the generous members who have made our forum possible. We are in our second decade as a beekeeping forum and all thanks to member support. At the top right of every page is a donations link. Please help if you can.