# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Quantum Physics: Abandon All Sanity Ye Who Enter Here!

## Reiku

>sigh<

I knew I wasn't going to get out of explaining this--I just hoped I could put it off a bit longer, since it's so involved.

Oh well, I'll just copy the thread I made on another forum--save myself _alot_ of typing.  :Laughing: 

*copied from another forum*

So, I'm sitting here--sore and bruised from getting my a$$ beat by my new sparring partner--when (not surprisingly) my mind begins to wander onto more intellectual subjects...

_Quantum Physics_

Now _there's_ a mindf*ck, and since I love f*cking in most of its forms--I figure why not make a thread about it.
So here we go...

*WARNING!
Quantum Physics and the theories and concepts involved in its study are known to cause insanity in scientists, interns, and other lab animals...

READ THIS THREAD AT YOUR OWN RISK!*

Well, if we're going to talk about this, I'd better skip straight to the BIG theory--wouldn't want anyone going insane before we got to it--so here it is:

The Experiment With Two Holes: Why Physics Is A Joke

Scientists have known for a while that when you shine a beam of light onto a plate with two holes in it, you get a striped pattern of light on the other side. This is caused by the different photons in the beam interfering with one another.

One day, a scientist decided to try firing only one photon at a time at the plate--and an amazing thing happened...

...the photons still made a striped "interference pattern" on the other side.

None of the scientists could figure it out--only one photon was going through at a time, so what could be interfering with it?

The answer would destroy physics as we know it.

The only explanation anyone could think of was that the single photon was being interfered with by versions of itself _from other realities_. It was determined that whenever more than one outcome is possible--such as the photon going through either the right or left hole--the universe splits into two or more parallel universes--one for each possible outcome.

Because the mathematical laws of probability state that _everything_ has at least a slight probability of happening, that means there are an infinite number of universes--and since they contain more possibilities than the human mind can conceive of--anything imaginable is true in at least one of them.

This has some interesting side affects, when you consider religion...

...people can conceive of other dimensions containing beings who are able to travel from their universe to ours, therefore these dimensions exist as one of the alternate universes--and any dimension hopping being from God to Satan to Captain Kirk can hop over here and lay the Holy/Unholy/Photon Torpedo b1tchslap down on our mortal a$$ess.

Thus all religions from Christianity to Shinto to the Church of Bob the Guy Next Door are true.

If that wasn't bad enough, further examination showed that when a universe splits into multiple realities, it becomes suspended as a "probability wave"--a mathematical probability that only collapses into a real outcome when observed.

This led to the question "what counts as an observer?"

Would a camera or a mechanical detector count?

What about an animal?

Does it have to be a conscious observer like a person?

And if so, what if there is no one observing them?

Wouldn't their state of "did observe"/"didn't observe" become yet another probability wave and require another observer to collapse it--who would then require another and another and....

Eventually, the scientists figured out that it was belief that determined which outcome you ended up with. It turns out the mind subconsciously receives information from all the alternate realities simultaneously, then it's subconscious beliefs act as a "tuner" to select the reality the mind considers to be "real" and ignores the information from all the other universes--much like a TV that receives all the channels through it's antenna, but only displays the channel it's tuned to.

Of course, what all this means is that none of the so called "laws of physics" existed until some scientist found enough evidence for them to subconsciously believe it was real.

In short, they made them all up.

Not only does this theory prove that Physics is just a bunch of people in lab 
coats convincing themselves and everyone else that arbitrary rules are "The Laws of the Physical Universe", it also proves that nothing is actually "real"--all the alternate realities are really just a series of probabilities that the mind selects from, choosing which aspect of the probability wave's pattern it wants to focus on but being unable to collapse the wave into an actual reality.

Of course, the theory sounds like total Bull$hit, even the name of the experiment sounds fake-- WTF? "The Experiment With Two Holes" LOL!

...the only problem is, nobody's been able to disprove it--and all the evidence points to it being absolutely true.

Welcome to the matrix, Neo--now you know 1/3 of the meaning behind my signature:

This floating world really _is_ a dream! 

*end copied text*

About that last part--at the forum I origionally posted this on, I had a quote from the Akira Kurosawa film "Hidden Fortess" as my signature:

"...and this floating world is a dream--burn with abandon!"

For more information on the subject, or to verify the claims I made in that post, you can google for "The Experiment With Two holes" and "Schrodinger's Cat Theory"

Bear in mind that some physicists will loudly argue against this theory--they are just trying to keep their jobs, not unlike the scientists who argued against gravitation, the idea that the earth orbited the sun, and Einstien's general theory of relativity.

If you can actually find _proof_ that this theory is wrong, by all means let me know.

I'd love to have something more believable than this hobgoblin of a theory, but I've got to go with the evidence--and the evidence supports it.

----------


## bossel

> The answer would destroy physics as we know it.


Nah, not really. Because, AFAIK, there is no definite answer yet.




> Eventually, the scientists figured out that it was belief that determined which outcome you ended up with.


_The_ scientists? Who exactly?





> If you can actually find _proof_ that this theory is wrong, by all means let me know.


1st you would have to define what exactly is your theory. Then you would have to offer proof in support of it. Why would there be a need to disprove it?

Anyway, just so that you don't misunderstand: I'm not criticising your "theory" (nor do I want to get involved in a philosophical debate, tastes too much like religion), I just want a bit of a clarification.

BTW, for people interested in the stuff: Better not look for "The Experiment With Two holes", but for "Young's Experiment" or the "Double-Slit Experiment".

----------


## Reiku

Just the kind of response I expected, sadly.

Nice try though, Bossel--and thanks for providing a good example of a deceitful statement masquerading as informed scientific dissent.

For the readers that might not recognize the various underhanded tactics you used, I'm going to point them out so they can recognize them in the future.

First off:




> Nah, not really. Because, AFAIK, there is no definite answer yet.


This is a good one for tripping up those not familiar with the study of physics. 

Most people don't realize that physics offers no "definite answer" on anything--that why we call them _theories_. The term "laws of physics" is sometimes used for theories that have stood for a long time, but at one time the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was considered equally sound by the scientific community.

Our understanding of the universe is still very limited, so all physics can offer is a theory which best fits what we know at the time. As we continue to discover, we may come across something (such as the result of Young's Experiment when performed with a single photon) which proves a previously accepted "law of physics" to be flawed or even completely wrong--and then we must find a new theory to replace it.

In short, the argument "there is no definite answer yet" could as easily be used to argue against _gravity_ or any other "law" of physics, for that matter.

It is another way of asking: "How can I be sure I'm not dreaming all of this?"

The answer is: You can't.

The theory I have outlined here has as much (possibly more) proof as Einsteinfs theory of general relativity--so if you accept one as being sufficiently proven, you logically have to accept the other.

On to the next one.




> _The_ scientists? Who exactly?


This was actually a valid point--sadly I'm very bad with names and do not currently have access to the books I read this in, as the library system in my town has recently had it's budget slashed and is rarely open.

However, if you do a little research--if I could find the information in a public library it can't take much digging--you should be able to find out.

I'll keep an eye open myself, but who discovered it isn't as important as _what_ they discovered--and it is the best explanation I've heard.

At any rate, I'll continue to delve into the matter and post more information on this as I can find it--including references, of course.




> 1st you would have to define what exactly is your theory.


This reminds me of the time a friend of mine was teaching me the raku pottery firing method on the beach at night, and a drunken woman and her friends approached the fire pit.

Drunk: "Can we share your fire?"

My Friend: "No."

Drunk: (calling to her friends) "She said yes!"

I just gave a lengthy definition of the theory in question--and you claim I need to "define it"?

The contradiction speaks for itself; however there is another part of that statement that needs addressing:




> 1st you would have to define what exactly is *your* theory.


It's not my theory.

I never claimed it was my theory.

I had no part in its development, nor do I have any personal stake in its validity--except perhaps that I would prefer that it _weren't_ true.

Your calling it "my" theory is a deceitful attempt to reduce other's opinions of it.

This is not some theory _I_ came up with. It is a theory developed and supported by qualified physicists, for example: These PhDs

Scroll down to see the full list, and while you're at it, check out the rest of the site and watch the film--it's not the best source of information on quantum physics, but it's useful.

On to the next:




> Then you would have to offer proof in support of it. Why would there be a need to disprove it?


If you're as familiar with Young's Experiment as you claim to be, then you've already seen the proof.

There is a need to disprove it because it is has been scientifically proven by qualified physicists, the burden of proof is now on the opposition.

Moving on...




> Anyway, just so that you don't misunderstand: I'm not criticising your "theory" (nor do I want to get involved in a philosophical debate, tastes too much like religion), I just want a bit of a clarification.


To recap:

1) Not my theory--a proven theory of qualified physicists

2) Not a philosophical debate--a proven theory of qualified physicists

3) Not unclear, there were about 800 words of plain-english explanation.

And finally:




> BTW, for people interested in the stuff: Better not look for "The Experiment With Two holes", but for "Young's Experiment" or the "Double-Slit Experiment".


Actually, "The Experiment With Two Holes" is a common, if informal, term for the Double-Slit experiment--and does in fact return relevant results in a google search. I made it a point to check the terms "The Experiment With Two Holes", and "Schrodinger's Cat Theory" to make sure they would return appropriate results when entered in a google search.

Further, the fact that you know the more formal names of this experiment means that:

A) You heard it somewhere, and are pretending to know what you are talking about.

B) Your knowledge of the subject is limited to Thomas Young's experiment from the early 1800's

C) You actually know what you are talking about, and have been face to face with the "proof" and "clarification" you keep requesting from me.

If anyone has any legitimate requests for clarification, or has any actual evidence to counter this theory, by all means let me know.

I am not opposed to any honest disscussion of the matter, and will engage all such discussions in a courteous manner--I just won't show the same tolerance those attempting to derail this discussion rather than contribute.

----------


## Kinsao

I find this very interesting. It's a theory that I have never read about formally, but I did think of it when I was at school (although it made my mind boggle on both cylinders so I stopped thinking about it _too_ deeply!). At some point in my later life I did become aware that actual real scientists had investigated this and it wasn't just a random thought floating around in my head... ^_^

Anyway, it is unprovable... and so is everything else. Isn't that the beauty of the universe?!




> It turns out the mind subconsciously receives information from all the alternate realities simultaneously, then it's subconscious beliefs act as a "tuner" to select the reality the mind considers to be "real" and ignores the information from all the other universes


It's a real bummer when the reality your mind considers to be "real" doesn't co-incide with the one everyone else's minds seem to have selected...  :Sick:   :Sad: 




> at one time the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was considered equally sound by the scientific community.
> 
> Our understanding of the universe is still very limited, so all physics can offer is a theory which best fits what we know at the time


I'm not saying that this supports - or disproves - the theory, but it's always worth remembering, in any case...

Interesting stuff.  :Smiling:

----------


## yidaki

Wow, that's alot of text  :Smiling: 

It's an interesting theory.
But can't one argue something about the photon being affected by the absence of another photon, since the other hole is there I mean.
Or how about dark matter, perhaps dark matter is influenced by the holes aswell, making a gravity pull like a second photon.
Or perhaps some kind of string theory, that the universe has some kind of wave activity all the time, more or less, and that that is visible by shooting a photon through a hole.
I don't know, seems kind of far fetched to assume parallell universes just by this experiment.

I'm no physicist, but when you get to this level it's more like philosophy imho.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I find the idea of parallel universes to be utterly compelling. I would be more concerned if experimental evidence suggested that they don't exist.

----------


## Mycernius

I've heard of this experiment and actually seen it done on a Horizon programme on BBC2 once. There are two theories about the properties of light and why it causes this affect. One, as Reiku san pointed out, is that the experiment is being affected by alternate realities. The other is that light can exist as a wave and a paricle. As a particle it should only been seen through the one hole, but as a wave it can be seen through both holes. Because of its properties light can give rise to all sort of theories, even causing theoretical physicists to change their opinions on the nature of the universe. I think even Stephen Hawkings has changed his position on alternate universes and time travel. I'm going to have to re-read my quantum books, as I'm a little rusty on the subject.

----------


## kumo

Continuing from the other thread...




> I would suggest though, that you take the time to look at the actual evidence before calling a theory tested, proven, and supported by respected scientists with PhD's in physics "a common myth that some people seem to like because it confirms their postmodernist bullshit theories."


I didn't call quantum physics a "postmodernist bullshit theory"; I said you purposedly distort what quantum physics is about to support your own postmodernist bullshit theory, which is made quite clear here:



> ...and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"


I can only imagine this to be a gross misunderstanding of the object-observer interdependance concept. You seem to think that what we believe somehow determines the result (our "individual reality"), thus making everyone right. You are wrong:
- Although the observer and objects are interdependent in quantum physics, the laws of nature are just as absolute as they ever were. If you believe in magic, you'll be *wrong* in whatever "reality" you are. 
- Our interaction indeed affects the nature of objects (mainly the wave/particle duality), but this has nothing to with our "cognitive construction." When a wave function collapses and an electron appears at a certain location, what we think about it is irrelevant. In other words, it's not what we decide or our beliefs that determines what happens; it's what we DO-- e.g. observe certain things.

Sorry Reiku, your postmodernist bullshit theory isn't supported by quantum physics, nor philosophy or anything else for that matter. It's still a relativist fallacy.

----------


## Kinsao

Mind your language, kumo. 
And everyone.
To be fair.

----------


## kumo

> Mind your language, kumo. 
> And everyone.
> To be fair.


Considering the much higher rate of "swear words" on Reiku's post I don't quite understand why you didn't say that before. Well, whatever. :Relieved:

----------


## suirai

The first steps toward quantum physics were taken when Roentgen discovered X(eXf for unexplained) rays, and Becquerel started finding oddities in his experiments with uranium, both late in the 19th century. 

I say that because just about that time many, if not most, scientists were stating that they had arrived at a fairly accurate understanding of the physical world. Itfs not the first time, nor will it be the last when scientists start closing their minds and shutting down their innate gift of testing perceived realities. One of the great gifts that humans possess is to explore, to test, to push beyond the imaginable. gWhat cannot be imagined cannot be done.h are the words (or very close) that someone offered as advice. And so very, very true.

Anyway those godditiesh written about above got some to start taking a second look at our physical world and that second look has been going on for more than a hundred years.

If you are really interested in studying about this you should most definitely start with Alastair I. M. Raefs _Quantum Mechanics_. If you are still interested after finishing that then move on to some of Raefs other writings. Richard Feynman is a must read, too. _The Character of Physical Law_ by Feynman would have to be at the very top of any study.

By the way, of all Ifve read in this thread, especially in the OP, something I think I read in the OP referred to a/the universe gsplittingh. My view is that there have always been an infinite number of universes, which makes the gunih in universe the greatest misnomer in our history. But multiverse doesnft cut it either. We need a completely different word, and a better word can help us better gimagineh what wefre studying. And what we are ultimately studying is the meaning of life.

Oh yes, I read somewhere in the thread that the OP seemed to contain religious overtones. You better believe that advances in the study of quantum physics and post-quantum physics are going to shake the very foundations of religious beliefs as we know them today. Yep, that revolution isnft so far off, but probably not in my lifetime, although the roots are there now. In fact, they always have been there. We just need to keep gdiscoveringh, keep gexploringh, and not get complacent.

Just remember that everything revolves around our flat earth and you are on the right path to a fantastic journey of gdiscoveryh. Go for it! Humans need, absolutely have to have to survive, gdiscoverersh. 



.

----------


## Kinsao

> Considering the much higher rate of "swear words" on Reiku's post I don't quite understand why you didn't say that before. Well, whatever.


Sorry Kumo - I really did mean everyone.  :Bluush: 
I wasn't really thinking when I posted, and came off as too abrupt. My apologies.

----------


## Mamoru-kun

And what if the quantum fluctuations ("emptyness fluctuation" in French, don't know if it's the correct translation in English), being the cause of the single photon beam strange behaviors (see first post), wasn't due to "other universes" (in which I personally don't believe), but to the other dimensions fluctuations? Those branes (once again, I'm not sure that it's the correct English translation of the French "cords theory" term), which we can't detect with our own sense (by definition), nor by our actual technology. Why an energy fluctuation in one of those “cords” couldn’t create a particle in “our” dimensions during a small amount of time, taking into account that energy and mass are linked, and thus that the “created from nowhere” particle would have interfered with the photon beam? It would be for me much more "acceptable" than the idea of an infinity of universe, with an infinity * 10 exp X number of living beings  :Wink:

----------


## mad pierrot

I mean, why can't light just make a decision?
First it's a particle, then a wave, then a particle again...

Make up your mind, damnit!



 :Smiling:  


All jokes aside, I can only imagine this thread going downhill. On the other hand, so many people pretending to have deep knowledge on this subject should make for some interesting posts. 

Kind of reminds me of this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/186...Fencoding=UTF8

----------


## suirai

> And what if the quantum fluctuations ("emptyness fluctuation" in French, don't know if it's the correct translation in English), being the cause of the single photon beam strange behaviors (see first post), wasn't due to "other universes" (in which I personally don't believe), but to the other dimensions fluctuations? Those branes (once again, I'm not sure that it's the correct English translation of the French "cords theory" term), which we can't detect with our own sense (by definition), nor by our actual technology. Why an energy fluctuation in one of those gcordsh couldnft create a particle in gourh dimensions during a small amount of time, taking into account that energy and mass are linked, and thus that the gcreated from nowhereh particle would have interfered with the photon beam? It would be for me much more "acceptable" than the idea of an infinity of universe, with an infinity * 10 exp X number of living beings


In a nutshell you're saying there is matter yet to be discovered, yes?

I like that. I like that a lot. If that can be proven true it sure would shake matters up a bit. Pun intended.

Yep, let me think about this. I like that idea.

----------


## Mamoru-kun

I'm not saying that there is matter which is not discovered yet. Perhaps it’s the case, perhaps not, I don’t have an opinion about it.

But let's think about additional dimensions which could not be detected by our senses: if we postulate that such dimensions exist, our senses cannot "detect" them (as a cartoon character -cannot- detect the 3rd dimension)…else we would have already noticed/recognized them (that’s another postulate, but which seems to me acceptable too). Human beings being what they are, it takes a loooong time to access theory of things which we can't feel/detect (see how long took the humanity to reach the relativity theory, the quantum theory,...). So that also explains, for me, why we cannot detect them with our technology yet (if you want, because we haven't thought in the -correct- direction yet).

Now let's speak about a particle: take my cartoon example again. He is living in his 2D world, and obviously don't know the presence of the cartoonist, because he evolves in another set of dimensions (but it is still the same world, the same universe, I want to point it!). If there is a photon in the 2D world (let's say XY world), as soon as the photon takes its way along the Z axis (so leaving the sheet of paper), it disappears from the cartoon character’s view. The photon is still there, being visible by the cartoonist only now (once again, it’s a basic point of view, just an idealistic example).

So for me, it’s not incredible to believe that there is other dimensions which could interact with our usual 3 dimensions that way (but probably only at a very small scale. Or those dimensions are very small, if you prefer). And once again, in -dimensions-, I don’t speak about other -spaces- where we could find other planets, or things like that. It's just more like dimensions as in a n-dimensions tables, containing nothing else than our usual world, but with additional perspectives…

----------


## Mike Cash

There once was a girl named Bright
Whose speed was faster than light
She started out one day, in a relative way
And returned the previous night.

----------


## bossel

> Nice try though, Bossel--and thanks for providing a good example of a deceitful statement masquerading as informed scientific dissent.


Wrong.
Actually, the part of your original post to which I reacted here can be called "a deceitful statement masquerading as informed scientific" knowledge. It's simply not true that "The only explanation anyone could think of was that the single photon was being interfered with by versions of itself from other realities." There are a number of other explanations.




> Most people don't realize that physics offers no "definite answer" on anything--that why we call them _theories_.


That's obviously dependent on your definition of definite & theory. Taking Wikipedia's definition of physical laws as "typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community", for me this would be enough to call it a definite answer. Whether definite answers as such actually exist is more a philosophical question.




> The term "laws of physics" is sometimes used for theories that have stood for a long time, but at one time the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was considered equally sound by the scientific community.


Sounds like another "deceitful statement masquerading as informed" opinion. The scientific community you mention can hardly be called scientific (unless, of course, you have another one of your very own one-&-only definitions, this time for science).




> In short, the argument "there is no definite answer yet" could as easily be used to argue against _gravity_ or any other "law" of physics, for that matter.


Does that mean that you think your statement of "The answer would destroy physics as we know it" is on equal footing with a physical law? 




> The theory I have outlined here has as much (possibly more) proof as Einsteinfs theory of general relativity--so if you accept one as being sufficiently proven, you logically have to accept the other.


Wrong. That would only be true if you actually offered some proof, which you didn't. You only offered some speculation, which is perhaps possible to call hypothesis. But a theory? You're quite presumptuous, as it seems.




> This was actually a valid point--sadly I'm very bad with names and do not currently have access to the books I read this in


D&#233;j&#224; vu.




> it is the best explanation I've heard.


Sounded different in your 1st post. Didn't you say something about the "only explanation"? Hmm, "deceitful statement..."?




> I just gave a lengthy definition of the theory in question--and you claim I need to "define it"?


A lengthy definition? You told us what the experiment was about & then stated an admittedly lengthy opinion piece on what it according to you means for conventional physics. Haven't seen much of a theory there, but mere speculation & some "deceitful statements...".




> It's not my theory.


& it's not even a theory, as it seems. But I already considered that it wasn't your original idea, that's why I asked about "the" scientists.




> Your calling it "my" theory is a deceitful attempt to reduce other's opinions of it.


Wrong. Semantically, this sentence construction is possible to use in order to show that you consider sth. to be so.'s preferred interpretation or topic. What's more, I don't need to reduce other's opinions of it, you do that very well yourself by not providing the necessary evidence.




> This is not some theory _I_ came up with. It is a theory developed and supported by qualified physicists


Ah, yes, what the bleep...
Not by any chance sponsored by the Institute of Noetic Sciences? Well, then, if it's your religion...




> If you're as familiar with Young's Experiment as you claim to be


Could you quote me on that claim?




> There is a need to disprove it because it is has been scientifically proven by qualified physicists, the burden of proof is now on the opposition.


Oops, another of those "deceitful statements..."?

Young's Experiment was done by qualified physicists. What you posted was just an interpretation of the experiment. You didn't really provide any evidence that physicists developed any such "theory", nor that they provided any proof to support it. The experiment itself only shows a developing interference pattern, but does not explain _why_ there is "interference."




> 1) Not my theory--a proven theory of qualified physicists
> 2) Not a philosophical debate--a proven theory of qualified physicists
> 3) Not unclear, there were about 800 words of plain-english explanation.


1) What the bleep?
2) OK, not philosophical, but religious (since the IONS is a cult, I have to admit that).
3) 800? The part that you copied & pasted was a mere 689 words (according to my OOo writer). The problem is that these 689 or 800 words do not constitute a scientific theory, nor do they explain very much.




> "The Experiment With Two Holes" is a common, if informal, term for the Double-Slit experiment--and does in fact return relevant results in a google search.


Well, relevant... 

When I searched with your keywords, it looked like there were quite a number of websites with - er... - metaphysical content. Relevant, yeah, for a cultist, maybe. The search words I proposed seemed to bring on more scientific pages, therefore my suggestion. 




> Further, the fact that you know the more formal names of this experiment means that:
> A) You heard it somewhere, and are pretending to know what you are talking about.
> B) Your knowledge of the subject is limited to Thomas Young's experiment from the early 1800's
> C) You actually know what you are talking about, and have been face to face with the "proof" and "clarification" you keep requesting from me.


Wrong on all counts.
a) Nope. Could you quote me on that "pretending"?
b) Nope, but your interpretation was rather new (or better: the idea that your interpretation was a valid theory).
c) Nope, I just read about the experiment & some possible explanations.




> I am not opposed to any honest disscussion of the matter, and will engage all such discussions in a courteous manner


Honest? Not by any chance do you prefer "deceitful statements"?

----------


## Mamoru-kun

With all due respect, would it be possible to keep such "arguements" in PM mode only? This thread is (or can become) a very interesting one, so...please  :Relieved:

----------


## bossel

> With all due respect, would it be possible to keep such "arguements" in PM mode only? This thread is (or can become) a very interesting one, so...please


Actually, these "arguements" are very much part of this thread. If you want to discuss such mindboggling ideas "that nothing is actually "real"", no problem. But to present all this as a valid scientific theory? At best, it's science fiction, but not science. Of course, if it's your religion, you don't like to have this stuff criticised, but then you shouldn't present it as science.

----------


## Mamoru-kun

Well Bossel, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "religion" (I was not refering to any God things, if by mistake it's what my post let people think), but yes indeed, my posts were only "sience fiction". I'm not a scientist, and just have sciences bases, so not much to construct with. If I have well understood, you are some kind of physicist with deep understanding of science things, so I can understand your point of view, but well, would you mind to let some place in this thread for people, like me, who like to dream and do "strange hypothesis"?  :Poh:  I don't want to be rude, but I really was hoping not to see this thread becoming one more "you're wrong because I'm right and here is the prove" thread  :Relieved:

----------


## Reiku

O_o

Well, this is what I get for being gone for so long...

...I'll try to adress everybody's responses as best I can.




> It's a real bummer when the reality your mind considers to be "real" doesn't co-incide with the one everyone else's minds seem to have selected...


Tell me about it!  :Laughing: 




> at one time the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was considered equally sound by the scientific community.
> 
> Our understanding of the universe is still very limited, so all physics can offer is a theory which best fits what we know at the time





> I'm not saying that this supports - or disproves - the theory, but it's always worth remembering, in any case...
> Interesting stuff.


I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say there...

...you're right, it doesn't prove the theory either way--only shows us that we can't be sure of anything.

(Not even what we can be sure of...)




> Wow, that's alot of text 
> It's an interesting theory.
> But can't one argue something about the photon being affected by the absence of another photon, since the other hole is there I mean.
> Or how about dark matter, perhaps dark matter is influenced by the holes aswell, making a gravity pull like a second photon.
> Or perhaps some kind of string theory, that the universe has some kind of wave activity all the time, more or less, and that that is visible by shooting a photon through a hole.
> I don't know, seems kind of far fetched to assume parallell universes just by this experiment.
> I'm no physicist, but when you get to this level it's more like philosophy imho.


You're right, those are possible explanations. The thing is that scientists have a philosophy called "Occam's Razor" that states: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

So while the presence of dark matter in the lab _could_ explain it, Occam's Razor rules that out in favor of a simpler explanation.

It also doesn't help that I didn't explain the theory very well in my first post.

To be more clear, it's not so much that the photon is being affected by parralel-universe versions of itself, as that it's being affected by all the possible outcomes.

It's a very difficult concept to put into words, because it has different interpretations depending on whether you look at it from "inside" (our perspective) or "outside" (veiwing the system as a whole)

From an "inside" perspective, the photon becomes a wave of probabilities, which each interfere with each other, producing the interference pattern seen as the result of this experiment. (I'll explain this in more detail in a minute...)

From an "outside" perspective, all of what we call "reality" is in a similar probability wave state. So it's not that there are parralell universes, so much as there are a lot of probable universes, but none of them--including ours--are actually "real".

I guess you could picture it like this:

You roll a die across a table. While it's rolling, all six sides have a chance to come up, but none of them actually have yet. But if you could take a picture at just the right moment, you might see a certain side facing up, even though the die was still rolling.

Basicly, it's the same idea--the dice are still rolling, but our minds take a "snapshot" of all the probable realities and we act as though whatever we see in that snapshot is what's "real".

It's a hard concept to wrap your brain around...




> I find the idea of parallel universes to be utterly compelling. I would be more concerned if experimental evidence suggested that they don't exist.


It is a fascinating (if brain twisting) concept, although I can't really say wanting something to be true because it's interesting is unbiased.

Personally, I'd prefer that it wasn't true--one reality is complicated enough, I don't need any others to deal with.  :Relieved: 




> I've heard of this experiment and actually seen it done on a Horizon programme on BBC2 once. There are two theories about the properties of light and why it causes this affect. One, as Reiku san pointed out, is that the experiment is being affected by alternate realities. The other is that light can exist as a wave and a paricle. As a particle it should only been seen through the one hole, but as a wave it can be seen through both holes. Because of its properties light can give rise to all sort of theories, even causing theoretical physicists to change their opinions on the nature of the universe. I think even Stephen Hawkings has changed his position on alternate universes and time travel. I'm going to have to re-read my quantum books, as I'm a little rusty on the subject.


Actually, what you discribed is actually the same theory--just discribed from an "outside" and then an "inside" perspective.

The origional experiment done in the 1800's led to the theory that light particles moved in waves, so the many different "lightwaves" making up a beam of light interfered with each other and caused the pattern produced in Thomas Young's experiment.

Later, when technology had advanced to the point where it was possible to produce and detect indivitual light particles, the experiment was tried again, with just a single photon.

Since there was only one lightwave, but they still got an interferance pattern, the theory had to be revised.

The explanation proposed by the Probability Wave theory is that the photon didn't just become a wave of light, but a mathematical wave of probabilities, and it was the different probability waves (The photon being on the right side, the left side, in the middle, ect...) that interfered with each other.

As for sceintists changing their positions on different theories, I think it can be a good thing--as long as it's motivated by the evidence and not a personal bias or outside pressure.

I feel one of the saddest things to happen in science was when Einstien turned his back on quantum physics because of his _belief_ that "God does not play dice with the universe."

I guess not even the greatest scientific minds can be completely free of personal bias.




> Continuing from the other thread...
> I didn't call quantum physics a "postmodernist bullshit theory"; I said you purposedly distort what quantum physics is about to support your own postmodernist bullshit theory, which is made quite clear here:
> I can only imagine this to be a gross misunderstanding of the object-observer interdependance concept. You seem to think that what we believe somehow determines the result (our "individual reality"), thus making everyone right. You are wrong:
> - Although the observer and objects are interdependent in quantum physics, the laws of nature are just as absolute as they ever were. If you believe in magic, you'll be *wrong* in whatever "reality" you are. 
> - Our interaction indeed affects the nature of objects (mainly the wave/particle duality), but this has nothing to with our "cognitive construction." When a wave function collapses and an electron appears at a certain location, what we think about it is irrelevant. In other words, it's not what we decide or our beliefs that determines what happens; it's what we DO-- e.g. observe certain things.
> Sorry Reiku, your postmodernist bullshit theory isn't supported by quantum physics, nor philosophy or anything else for that matter. It's still a relativist fallacy.


Two things:

1) Your statement that "If you believe in magic, you'll be *wrong* in whatever "reality" you are." is a statement of personal opinion, not a scientific fact.

The existance of "magic" has not, to my knowlege, been seriously debated by the scientific community--just discarded as heresy. As such, science doesn't really have a position on the matter--at least not a _scientific_ one.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in magic either--but I also don't believe in the Probability Wave therory. However, in my more rational moments I try to go by what reason and evidence shows to be true, not my own personal biases.

2) Apparently it is you who is not fully informed about quantum physics. Please pursue the informaion availible here and rejoin the debate once you are up to speed, particularly on Max Born's Probability Wave Interpretation of Quantum Theory




> The first steps toward quantum physics were taken when Roentgen discovered X(eXf for unexplained) rays, and Becquerel started finding oddities in his experiments with uranium, both late in the 19th century. 
> I say that because just about that time many, if not most, scientists were stating that they had arrived at a fairly accurate understanding of the physical world. Itfs not the first time, nor will it be the last when scientists start closing their minds and shutting down their innate gift of testing perceived realities. One of the great gifts that humans possess is to explore, to test, to push beyond the imaginable. gWhat cannot be imagined cannot be done.h are the words (or very close) that someone offered as advice. And so very, very true.
> Anyway those godditiesh written about above got some to start taking a second look at our physical world and that second look has been going on for more than a hundred years.
> If you are really interested in studying about this you should most definitely start with Alastair I. M. Raefs _Quantum Mechanics_. If you are still interested after finishing that then move on to some of Raefs other writings. Richard Feynman is a must read, too. _The Character of Physical Law_ by Feynman would have to be at the very top of any study.
> By the way, of all Ifve read in this thread, especially in the OP, something I think I read in the OP referred to a/the universe gsplittingh. My view is that there have always been an infinite number of universes, which makes the gunih in universe the greatest misnomer in our history. But multiverse doesnft cut it either. We need a completely different word, and a better word can help us better gimagineh what wefre studying. And what we are ultimately studying is the meaning of life.
> Oh yes, I read somewhere in the thread that the OP seemed to contain religious overtones. You better believe that advances in the study of quantum physics and post-quantum physics are going to shake the very foundations of religious beliefs as we know them today. Yep, that revolution isnft so far off, but probably not in my lifetime, although the roots are there now. In fact, they always have been there. We just need to keep gdiscoveringh, keep gexploringh, and not get complacent.
> Just remember that everything revolves around our flat earth and you are on the right path to a fantastic journey of gdiscoveryh. Go for it! Humans need, absolutely have to have to survive, gdiscoverersh. 
> .


Well, it's nice to see someone who understands the value of an open mind in the pursuit of knowlege.

As I mentioned before, I was not as clear as I could have been in my description of this theory. It is very hard for me to get such concepts from my brain to my mouth--or fingers, in this case--without messing up the translation a bit.  :Relieved: 

The idea that reality "splits" into parralel universes when more than one outcome is possible is a different theory from the one I am trying to explain here, and in hindsight, I shouldn't have mentioned it. (So as to avoid confusion on an already mind-boggling subject.)

The probablility wave theory is more along the lines of your belief that there has "always been an infinite number of universes", except that it proposes that they are possible universes, not actual ones--for all the sense that distinction makes.  :Laughing: 




> And what if the quantum fluctuations ("emptyness fluctuation" in French, don't know if it's the correct translation in English), being the cause of the single photon beam strange behaviors (see first post), wasn't due to "other universes" (in which I personally don't believe), but to the other dimensions fluctuations? Those branes (once again, I'm not sure that it's the correct English translation of the French "cords theory" term), which we can't detect with our own sense (by definition), nor by our actual technology. Why an energy fluctuation in one of those gcordsh couldnft create a particle in gourh dimensions during a small amount of time, taking into account that energy and mass are linked, and thus that the gcreated from nowhereh particle would have interfered with the photon beam? It would be for me much more "acceptable" than the idea of an infinity of universe, with an infinity * 10 exp X number of living beings


Well, it's importaint to remember that the stated purpose of science is to find the _correct_ explanations, not the most acceptable ones.

I personally don't find the Probability Wave theory very acceptable, but it seems to be the proverbial "simplest explanation which fits all the evidence", so I'm stuck with it for now.

I could propose the existance of other dimensions, superstring fluctuations ("Superstring" is the english term), particles that form out of nowhere, or even divine intervention to explain the results of that experiment, but "Occam's Razor" cuts such speculations to pieces.

Not that Occam's Razor is nessecarily correct, but again--it's the best thing we have to go on.




> I mean, why can't light just make a decision?
> First it's a particle, then a wave, then a particle again...
> Make up your mind, damnit!


Well, according to the probability wave theory--it did make up it's mind:

It's a wave, and so is everything else.  :Laughing: 




> All jokes aside, I can only imagine this thread going downhill. On the other hand, so many people pretending to have deep knowledge on this subject should make for some interesting posts. 
> Kind of reminds me of this book.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/186...Fencoding=UTF8


Looks like a fun read.

I'm really hoping this thread won't go straight down the toilet--and it does seem to have managed to bounce off the rim a few times already, so I guess there's hope--but I agree that no matter what, it's going to be interesting.




> I'm not saying that there is matter which is not discovered yet. Perhaps itfs the case, perhaps not, I donft have an opinion about it.
> 
> But let's think about additional dimensions which could not be detected by our senses: if we postulate that such dimensions exist, our senses cannot "detect" them (as a cartoon character -cannot- detect the 3rd dimension)celse we would have already noticed/recognized them (thatfs another postulate, but which seems to me acceptable too). Human beings being what they are, it takes a loooong time to access theory of things which we can't feel/detect (see how long took the humanity to reach the relativity theory, the quantum theory,...). So that also explains, for me, why we cannot detect them with our technology yet (if you want, because we haven't thought in the -correct- direction yet).
> 
> Now let's speak about a particle: take my cartoon example again. He is living in his 2D world, and obviously don't know the presence of the cartoonist, because he evolves in another set of dimensions (but it is still the same world, the same universe, I want to point it!). If there is a photon in the 2D world (let's say XY world), as soon as the photon takes its way along the Z axis (so leaving the sheet of paper), it disappears from the cartoon characterfs view. The photon is still there, being visible by the cartoonist only now (once again, itfs a basic point of view, just an idealistic example).
> 
> So for me, itfs not incredible to believe that there is other dimensions which could interact with our usual 3 dimensions that way (but probably only at a very small scale. Or those dimensions are very small, if you prefer). And once again, in -dimensions-, I donft speak about other -spaces- where we could find other planets, or things like that. It's just more like dimensions as in a n-dimensions tables, containing nothing else than our usual world, but with additional perspectivesc


It's an interesting concept, and certainly not as brain-violating as the "this floating world is a dream" proposed by the Probability Wave theory--but again, "Occam's Razor".

It may be easier for _us_ to make up something new to explain things, but it makes more sense to reassess our previous assumptions in light of the new evidence than to make up evidence to support our existing beliefs.




> There once was a girl named Bright
> Whose speed was faster than light
> She started out one day, in a relative way
> And returned the previous night.


There was a young fencer named Fisk
Whose thrust was exceedingly brisk
So fast was his action
That the Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his raipier to a disk

Who says learning Physics can't be fun?  :Laughing: 




> With all due respect, would it be possible to keep such "arguements" in PM mode only? This thread is (or can become) a very interesting one, so...please


Good idea. After all, accusing people of being part of a cult and then dismissing their arguments as superstition really has no place in a scientific discussion.

Even if you could prove their god didn't exist, they wouldn't listen...

...even if they could prove their god did exist, you wouldn't listen.

A pointless waste of time, to challenge a person's core beliefs about the universe, I'd like to say "that's why I follow the evidence, not just beliefs", but even trusting that what I see and hear is real is an act of faith--how do I know I'm not dreaming?

So I guess my religion is "Deductive Reasoning" and my god is "Evidence"--too bad he's so unreliable.  :Laughing: 




> Well Bossel, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "religion" (I was not refering to any God things, if by mistake it's what my post let people think), but yes indeed, my posts were only "sience fiction". I'm not a scientist, and just have sciences bases, so not much to construct with. If I have well understood, you are some kind of physicist with deep understanding of science things, so I can understand your point of view, but well, would you mind to let some place in this thread for people, like me, who like to dream and do "strange hypothesis"?  I don't want to be rude, but I really was hoping not to see this thread becoming one more "you're wrong because I'm right and here is the prove" thread


Actually, I think he was referring to me, Mamoru-kun.

----------


## kumo

> Two things:
> 1) Your statement that "If you believe in magic, you'll be wrong in whatever "reality" you are." is a statement of personal opinion, not a scientific fact.
> The existance of "magic" has not, to my knowlege, been seriously debated by the scientific community--just discarded as heresy. As such, science doesn't really have a position on the matter--at least not a scientific one.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in magic either--but I also don't believe in the Probability Wave therory. However, in my more rational moments I try to go by what reason and evidence shows to be true, not my own personal biases.
> 2) Apparently it is you who is not fully informed about quantum physics. Please pursue the informaion availible here and rejoin the debate once you are up to speed, particularly on Max Born's Probability Wave Interpretation of Quantum Theory


You mean I am wrong, Reiku? But how is that possible if "everybody's right"?



> ...and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"


Maybe this only applies to postmodernists...

----------


## Reiku

Well, if you'd actually payed attention to the post you quoted, you'd see that I did _not_ say you were wrong...

...but then, you didn't bother to actually pay attention to the first post either--or you would have realized it was meant to be humourous:

"...everybody's right--at least within their own reality"

In other words, everybody _thinks_ they're right. It's a joke, grow a sense of humor.

I'm sorry that expressing an opinion you don't agree with makes you so angry, but that's really something you should work out for yourself--instead of spamming this thread with personal attacks.

When you've calmed down, if you actually want to _disscuss_ the subject, I'd be happy to hear your input.

But while we're on the subject, that does bring up an interesting point:

If the Probability Wave theory is accurate, and what each person considers "reality" is simply a matter of their perceptions--it brings up many interesting questions about how people with differing perceptions of reality interact.

In this case: How can "everybody be right" when one person believes another is wrong?

Well, what you have to do is take a look at what the term "right" actually means.

Since there is more than one percieved reality involved, you could say that the standard concept of a "overriding truth" simply doesn't apply: Person A is correct within the "truth" of his reality, and Person B is correct within the truth of _his_ reality--but when you look at the overal picture what you have is this:

If these "percieved realities" are actually just uncollapsed probability waves being experianced by ignoring all the other possible realities--as the Probability Wave theory states--then neither person's "reality" is actually real...

...so the conclusion is that they're both wrong.

Granted, this is more of a philosophical exercise than a scientific study--but frankly I don't have the brainpower to concieve of what an "uncollapsed probability wave" would really be like, let alone what the effcts of non-existing creatures percieving different non-exisiting realities within that wave and then arguing about it would be.

You _might_ be able to describe it mathematicly--but I have the feeling that this is one point where this concept passes out of the human range of understanding completely.

Which is another interesting concept: Why are we so certain we can even understand the answers we're looking for?

I agree that it's important to _try_ regardless, but I really have to wonder if the human brain is even capable of understanding it's own workings--let alone that of the universe and beyound.

Interesting things to ponder, at an rate...

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I like to read about quantum theory whenever I need reminding that my brain still works. For anyone else who needs a mental workout, or just has way too much time on their hands, here are a few good articles:

EPR paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Quantum teleportation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quant...ry-15675.shtml - I think the reply at the bottom adequately refutes his argument.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html - this guy really cleared up the bits I was struggling with.

----------


## heliobacter

ugh,

easy, easy...

i'm still struggling with einstein's specific theory of relativity  :Relieved:

----------

