I don't get Shrodinger's cat scenario, or by extension, quantum physics.

[werepossum]

That all matters on the type of sandwich...

Obviously it's a Schrödinger's Cat sandwich. Thus the 50% chance of being poisoned.

 

[Jeff7]

Imagine the horrors to be visited upon humanity should cats develop particle-wave duality.

At that point, you just accept that the cat is going to get outside anytime a door is opened.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

At that point, you just accept that the cat is going to get outside anytime a door is opened.

But the cat will stay inside too, so you never have to worry about it.

 

[Imp]

In a sense, the universe is being created as we need it, like a video game that only renders an object as we get close enough to view it. Until that time, the object exists in all possible states. But in another sense, every time we observe something, we limit its possibilities, so that the more we know about our universe, the less its freedom. Somebody needs to go back and look at all those particles to see if they resumed being waves once we stopped looking at them.

lulz, only because you peasants are running peasant computers with shitty draw distances.


Thank god for Doctor Who... they play with this stuff so often that I stopped thinking about it.

 

[destrekor]

The Universe is a lie. It's all a bunch of spooky shit at a distance, and we're just along for the ride.

I stick by my gut feeling/not-quite-hypothesis (though proposed as a hypothesis by people more knowledgeable than myself), that the Universe is a holographic pancake that might be in the shape of a bubble. So like a balloon, but you know, a flapjack. I like my universes to be tasty, and have you ever tasted a balloon?

Anywho, so that's the foundation of my theory. Everything we see exists as data in the hologram, viewed by us mere mortals, "in" the hologram, as fully multi-dimensional, while in the reality of the immortals, it is an impossible-to-understand hyper-flat surface of a pancake bubble. No bunnies found here, except from within the hologram.

The pancake bubble may or may not be sitting on a stack of turtles. This remains to be seen. It is possible it is both, but we mustn't attempt to observe this, for the turtles would probably be rather angry at having been stacked atop one another with nowhere to go stuck in the middle of literal nowhere with a damned bubble or a billion of them on top of the most annoyed turtle of them all, for his shell is surely set to become fouled with soap scum. Our world as we know it would suffer irreparably. It could turn out to be all a sham, but, is that a risk worth taking? I like my pancake bubble to remain unpopped, thank you very much. Can you imagine how messy that would be?!

And it could turn out that we are literal bubbles in the pancake. Which itself is a bubble. And there might be bubbles on the bubbles. Could even be bubbles within the bubbles. You go popping them, that's just going to be a mess, sure to piss off all those who perish in their bubbles. It could even be a stack of flapjacks, all fouled with bubbles. Surely not one fit to eat, but have you ever seen a hungry and angry world turtle? Neither have I, and I'd rather not.

 

[werepossum]

lulz, only because you peasants are running peasant computers with shitty draw distances.


Thank god for Doctor Who... they play with this stuff so often that I stopped thinking about it.

Hey, right now I'm playing maxed out - and still not quite believing that I paid over $300 for a video card.

 

[Jeff7]

But the cat will stay inside too, so you never have to worry about it.

Only until you call for it, at which point it will assume one state or the other.

The Universe is a lie. It's all a bunch of spooky shit at a distance, and we're just along for the ride.

I stick by my gut feeling/not-quite-hypothesis (though proposed as a hypothesis by people more knowledgeable than myself), that the Universe is a holographic pancake that might be in the shape of a bubble. So like a balloon, but you know, a flapjack. I like my universes to be tasty, and have you ever tasted a balloon?
...

I prefer the "this Universe is a simulation" thing.
"The rev1 simulation was nice, but I think we can get some serious computing mileage out of these subspace photonuons that were recently discovered. In 50 years we can probably simulate a small section of a universe at 10^18x realtime. We can throw in a nice big skybox to mimic a whole bunch of surrounding galaxies and mimic their physical effects. The resolution on that one small section though will be incredible."

"Yeah, that sounds great. Let's build a few and cluster the things, get a few universes out of it you know?"


Or a ZPM like in Stargate, their "universe in a bottle" mega-battery, and its entropic decay is what yields power output.

 

[disappoint]

Ok, so to sum up the observations from the double slit experiment:

Here's another video on the double slit experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoQYnhHQ95U

 

[destrekor]

Only until you call for it, at which point it will assume one state or the other.



I prefer the "this Universe is a simulation" thing.
"The rev1 simulation was nice, but I think we can get some serious computing mileage out of these subspace photonuons that were recently discovered. In 50 years we can probably simulate a small section of a universe at 10^18x realtime. We can throw in a nice big skybox to mimic a whole bunch of surrounding galaxies and mimic their physical effects. The resolution on that one small section though will be incredible."

"Yeah, that sounds great. Let's build a few and cluster the things, get a few universes out of it you know?"


Or a ZPM like in Stargate, their "universe in a bottle" mega-battery, and its entropic decay is what yields power output.

But in what universe did the simulation creators beget our universe?

I likethe idea of the universe being a "simulation" but more appropriately, as a computational energy that just happens to have emulated life, a goal which was not necessarily the express purpose.
But I like self-contained theories that don't require a whole new level of WTF to account for as an origin.

I prefer the idea that, if there is a such thing as a god, our universe is more likely to simply be the brain of a subspace intelligence/being, not the product of some such being. Or it could be, because a young one's imagination is wildly creative.

That, or our universe is intelligent but not sentient on its own, rather, all sentient lifeforms can "ascend" to become integrated with the collective consciousness.
Of which could still represent the other ideas: the universe could be the brain or source of intelligence for an otherworldly being that can act upon other universes or whatever is out there outside our universe; or it could be the end goal of a simulation to achieve a large collective consciousness to achieve full computational capability, or self awareness, or who knows what; or, what I'd consider preferable, the collective consciousness is simply what could be the end goal for life, something akin to becoming one with a god... which, you know, that could answer a lot of things if any historical stories are rooted in reality, if even remotely.

I definitely want their to be a collective consciousness and ability to ascend. That's just too cool. I'll take what I get, of course, but I definitely want a universe like Stargate SG1. :awe:

But I'm humbled by and mostly prefer the notion that our universe may be part of a larger multiverse, but otherwise, that's where it stops. The typical representation of such is that there may be certain ways in which the universes are connected, but otherwise, nothing can exist inside the gap between the multiverse and any individual universe. The possibility of an external creator is still valid in a multiverse, though I wouldn't prefer that, but, I realize, I can't always get what I want, but I try sometimes.

 

[disappoint]

Now I'm watching this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

It's longer and he promised some math. It seems more thorough.

 

[Fenixgoon]

More helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

:thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

Photons do not experience time. They never travel through the time dimension. From the perspective of the photon, there is no time dimension.

yup.

though, given that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, can a photon have a point of beginning (for lack of a better term) in spacetime, but no point of ending? say, a photon squirts out toward some distant galaxy that disappears from the horizon before the photon can get there - what happens to the photon? does it now gain mass and become dark matter?

The typical representation of such is that there may be certain ways in which the universes are connected, but otherwise, nothing can exist inside the gap between the multiverse and any individual universe.

 

[disappoint]

yup.

though, given that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, can a photon have a point of beginning (for lack of a better term) in spacetime, but no point of ending? say, a photon squirts out toward some distant galaxy that disappears from the horizon before the photon can get there - what happens to the photon? does it now gain mass and become dark matter?

Only the part of the universe beyond our observable universe is expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. An observer there if there is one, would not see their local part of the universe expanding faster than c, but could come to the realization that the part of the universe outside of their observable (by way of EM waves such as visible light) universe would be expanding away from them faster than c.

So the photon would be unaffected and would just keep traveling unaffected until it hits something.

Our observation of matter emitting photons shows they disappear when crossing the boundary of our observable universe. With the Hubble Space Telescope we have observed galaxies at the boundary fade away and disappear from our view because their light cannot reach us, even though a local observer would not notice any change to their local photon emitting matter, but they would notice that our galaxy has crossed their boundary (which is the same size as ours given the speed of light is the same for them as it is for us) and our galaxy disappeared to them.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[ElFenix]

Only the part of the universe beyond our observable universe is expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. An observer there if there is one, would not see their local part of the universe expanding faster than c, but could come to the realization that the part of the universe outside of their observable (by way of EM waves such as visible light) universe would be expanding away from them faster than c.

So the photon would be unaffected and would just keep traveling unaffected until it hits something.

Our observation of matter emitting photons shows they disappear when crossing the boundary of our observable universe. With the Hubble Space Telescope we have observed galaxies at the boundary fade away and disappear from our view because their light cannot reach us, even though a local observer would not notice any change to their local photon emitting matter, but they would notice that our galaxy has crossed their boundary (which is the same size as ours given the speed of light is the same for them as it is for us) and our galaxy disappeared to them.

I hope that makes sense.

To me there's an apparent contradiction between the first sentence of your post and the third paragraph.

As you stated, even though our observable universe is getting bigger (C * age if the universe), the space between distant galaxies is increasing at an faster (and accelerating) rate. Which results in distant galaxies disappearing off the horizon.

Therefore, the universe within our observable universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, isn't it?

So, unless matter is being created in the void, the photons that were emitted right after the last ones we can observe from a galaxy leaving our horizon go... no where? What matter would they hit? Their predecessors ran into us, but we are no longer in range. And the void does not seem like it's generating matter.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Now I'm watching this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

It's longer and he promised some math. It seems more thorough.

I think a ton of physicists disagree with this guy in the video. Also note that he has zero background in quantum mechanics - he works for Google doing totally unrelated stuff.

 

[disappoint]

Therefore, the universe within our observable universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, isn't it?

To a local observer no it isn't. We are local observers of our own observable universe.

To someone outside of our observable universe then yes our part of the universe is expanding away from them faster than c.

It's all relative. We observe their part of the universe expanding faster than c relative to us and they observe ours expanding faster than c relative to them but we don't observe ours expanding faster than c relative to us and they don't observe theirs expanding faster than c relative to them.

 

[disappoint]

I think a ton of physicists disagree with this guy in the video. Also note that he has zero background in quantum mechanics - he works for Google doing totally unrelated stuff.

You think a lot of physicists disagree or you know they do? Where are the physicists that disagree, with what part do they disagree and why? What is their alternate theory including evidence?

There is a discussion about his paper here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/22151-ron-garrets-qit-interpretation-qm.html

He even posted there himself:

FWIW, I submitted my paper to the American Journal of Physics back in the day. It was rejected, not on the grounds that it was wrong, but on the grounds that it was nothing new. That entanglement and measurement are the same physical phenomenon is common knowledge is (in) certain circles.

 

[disappoint]

Here's an article about an experiment which was able to weakly measure and track the photons paths (observe them) while not collapsing the wave function!

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jun/03/the-secret-lives-of-photons-revealed

An international team of researchers has, for the first time, mapped complete trajectories of single photons in Young's famous double-slit experiment. The finding takes an important first step towards measuring complementary variables of a quantum system – which until now has been considered impossible as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

In the double-slit experiment, a beam of light is shone onto a screen through two slits, which results in an interference pattern on the screen. The paradox is that one could not tell which slit single photons had passed through, as measuring this would directly distort the interference pattern on the screen. "In most science, it is possible to look at what a system is doing presently and so, determine its past or future. But in quantum mechanics, it is considered inconceivable to consider the past at all," says physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control at the University of Toronto, Canada who has led this new research.

Now, using a technique known as "weak measurement", Steinberg and his research team say they have managed to accurately measure both position and momentum of single photons in a two-slit interferometer experiment. The work was inspired by one of Steinberg's colleagues, Howard Wiseman of Griffith University, Australia, who in 2007 proposed that it may be possible to use weak measurements to determine momenta and positions in the double-slit experiment. Steinberg was immediately fascinated and began to see how this would become experimentally viable...

 

[flexy]

Many Worlds Interpretation

is awesome.

Because according to the MWI, we don't have to bother "for whom" the wave function collapses, and the "problem" of entanglement of particles and "faster than light", let alone cats that are zombies doesn't even come up!

Rather than collapsing the wave function for someone, the universe basically "splits up", aka one "real" universe where the cat lives, another "real" universe where the cat is dead.

You observe one particle in universe A (and find the particle spins "up), so the other one, even light years away must spin "down"). In the other, alternate universe B you'd observe the particle and find it's spinning "down", so the other particle miles away is spinning "up". Not even a need to something "magically" transfer faster than light. Simply TWO "universes" where you'd observe a particle with different states, or two universes, in one the cat is dead, in the other it lives.

Plus...the cool bonus: In the MWI time travel would be possible without any paradoxes.

Sounds FAR more "plausible" to me than the Copenhagen Interpretation which frankly leaves more questions open than it answers!

 

[Charmonium]

Here's an article about an experiment which was able to weakly measure and track the photons paths (observe them) while not collapsing the wave function!

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jun/03/the-secret-lives-of-photons-revealed

I think there's still quite a bit of controversy about the validity of weak measurements. 'Validity' in the sense that what they claim is being measured may not be what they're actually measuring.

Weak measurements don't necessarily violate the uncertainty principle because you're using many, many repeated measurements on thousands of particles. But whether or not the conclusions drawn from those measurements really tell you anything about how individual particles behave is still open question, at least as far as I can tell from what I've seen reading only lay publications.

 

[ElFenix]

To a local observer no it isn't. We are local observers of our own observable universe.

To someone outside of our observable universe then yes our part of the universe is expanding away from them faster than c.

It's all relative. We observe their part of the universe expanding faster than c relative to us and they observe ours expanding faster than c relative to them but we don't observe ours expanding faster than c relative to us and they don't observe theirs expanding faster than c relative to them.

i think we're talking past one another here.

our observable universe includes things that, due to universal expansion, will move on past the horizon. that isn't because either we or they are moving faster than the speed of light, but because the universe itself is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. i know that, and nothing i've written has been intended to dispute that, nor should it be construed that way.

however, i have not read anything that says that to us as an observer, those distant galaxies themselves are expanding. rather, the universe between us and them is expanding. those observations jive with general relativity, as when solved for a homogenous universe (which the space between superclusters resembles), the universe is expanding, but when solved for a heterogenous universe (which the superclusters resemble) it's not.

so, my question, what happens to a photon that gets sent out to the void between superclusters, but where it is going is moving away from it due to expansion at such a speed that it never gets there?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Not even a need to something "magically" transfer faster than light.

I think you give up the right to look down upon quantum entanglement as happening "magically" when your alternative spins off an entire new universe for every freaking coin flip.

 

[sandorski]

It's pretty simple really. When you see a Cat playing with a box, it's because the Cat is an Inter-Dimensional Traveler. The Cat is not playing with the box, it is traveling to other dimensions to annoy other people.

 

[flexy]

I think you give up the right to look down upon quantum entanglement as happening "magically" when your alternative spins off an entire new universe for every freaking coin flip.

Whether a "new" universe is actually spun off ("created") by decisions is the question. It may well be that (almost) infinite universes already exist, according to probabilities.

The idea that "almost infinite" universes could exist that contain all imaginable scenarios is ultimately, for me, not more abstruse than that ONE universe exists. Think about it.

On the other hand I DO have a problem with the idea that particles "know" about the state of other particles and would "adjust" their properties according to what observation someone makes light-years afar.

 

[Humpy]

I like this cat picture: