Quantum Physics Questions

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
Do you have an english degree? Would you say you are qualified enough in computer science to use the interwebs?

If we were talking Chaucer or NP-Complete algorithms I might find your comment insightful.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

While you don't necessarily need a degree to talk about the details of a subject, it certainly helps. In this case you would need to be fairly well versed in Quantum Mechanics to expect to be well received, something which does not usually happen without a physics degree (of course there are exceptions).
For the topic at hand there are couple of extremely relevant pieces of information, namely The EPR paradox and Bell's experiment.
I unfortunately do not have the time to put together a well laid out post about the details of either, instead I request that someone who does have the time and knowledge to put something together.
We need:
What is the EPR paradox and why is it significant? What does it say about the completeness of a physical theory (ie Hidden Variables) and local realism.
I'm pretty sure the original paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen is publicly available.

What is Bell's experiment and what did it show? What does it say about completeness and local realism?
Bell's original paper is also available and has a very good example in it.

In addition to all of this, collapse of the wavefunction, many worlds/ many paths, decoherence are all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and are not part of the formalism. With that said, decoherence is the more modern interpretation that Quantum Physicists use.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh

Quantum states are a result of statistical probability related to quantum mechanics. As such, they exist in relation to a conscious observer.
Take Schrödinger's cat...
If a particle of dust lands on the box, it may kill the cat, or it may not- the state still cannot be determined but by an observer, and their observation collapses the state.
Throw a second cat in the box- it complicates the representative math of the quantum state, but the second cat is now immersed in the state- one cannot know if the second cat ended up killing the first (get's more complicated if the cats are indistinguishable haha).

The point is this- a quantum state is a 'flux' between more than one state. Any non conscious entity that interacts with what is in the state becomes an extension of it (either directly immersed, or to a 2nd degree). Therefore, if you observe the second object, it is an extension of you, the observer, and collapses the state just as you would. If you did not observe the second object's interaction with the first, you can't say anything further about the first object, and for all intents and purposes, the 1st+2nd is equivalent to the first. It's kind of like a system and surroundings in thermodynamics- If you're not in the surroundings, you're in the system.

Powerengineer already brought up a very good point. If the collapse of a quantum waveform requires consciousness, then nothing ever existed until we (humans) came along to observe it? Or were the first nervous system good enough? What determines the level of consciousness required?

So far, all of your explanations provide good information about realism and completeness but so far, little about the requirement for the observer be conscious. So far the reasoning directly relating to conscious vs non-conscious observer is that non conscious observers become part of the "environment"... but what makes a conscious observer any different?

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Nothing is real until it is observed in it's original state- so you have to dive into quantum state to understand it precisely, any other higher state is filled with half-truths because the observation is partial and one-dimensional. That's is when you disconnect senses and bring your mind into such a state where you can identify the real nature. There is a way to do this through meditation, ancient Indian and Greek philosophers usually observed this way. Is it a hypnotic state where you see winged creatures from heaven? No, it assumes you are already hypnotized and the mental experiments are all about de-hynotizing yourself. But the problem is there always a spiritual aspect associated so scientists choose to ignore it. PM me if you are interested, it's not at all wise to mention it here

I heard about this where somebody explored the the parallels of quantum mechanics with mystical teachings. Until there is some empirical proof that the consciousness of one can affect the surroundings, it's all hogwash to me.

As far as I know, consciousness is a one way device, to interpret and act on the world, not the other way around.

Although... I have read about "faith healing" and "miracles" but so far seem to be coincidences.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

Conscious is a term in relation to the observer, not some medical or religious text. The conscious observer is the one that willfully undergoes an interaction with the object in a state of flux. You don't seem to get that the observer is the person who sees the state collapse (or a defined state form). If you're some crazy that wants to say only you are conscious because you are reading text on a screen- by all means.

It's not that nothing existed... it is not knowledge we can attain. If you feel a grain of sand is trying to attain the knowledge- sandman's your observer. But to someone not there to see sandman, they still have no idea what state the object is in. All these titles are roles, not descriptions for a casting call. Something there is an observer, or there is none- it's not about picking out of your head what can and cannot be an observer.

Choose a conscious observer; An old guy named Gandy, who has a notebook, and a pipe, and wears a magician hat. He's playing the role of conscious observer tonight. So if I go screwing around with a particle in a quantum state... how's Gandy to know? If he were to do tests on it, he himself would cause the state to collapse- so he would never establish I messed with it- he doesn't know about me. So to me, I am a conscious observer, to an imaginary absolute reference frame; I collapsed the state. But to poor old Gandy, he's still out in the park smoking and hypothesizing ways to test it without collapsing things, when 'the universe', shall we say (the imaginary absolute frame) knows I made the state collapse. You designate the observer how you'd like. It's not some quantum particle walks into the bar and someone steps forward as the observer. It is a role that is designated, and not something that should have effort expended on analysis that choice, as long as it is sound (alice, bob). Save the brain cells for the thing with the name 'quantum' in it's name.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
Choose a conscious observer; An old guy named Gandy, who has a notebook, and a pipe, and wears a magician hat. He's playing the role of conscious observer tonight. So if I go screwing around with a particle in a quantum state... how's Gandy to know? If he were to do tests on it, he himself would cause the state to collapse- so he would never establish I messed with it- he doesn't know about me. So to me, I am a conscious observer, to an imaginary absolute reference frame; I collapsed the state. But to poor old Gandy, he's still out in the park smoking and hypothesizing ways to test it without collapsing things, when 'the universe', shall we say (the imaginary absolute frame) knows I made the state collapse. You designate the observer how you'd like. It's not some quantum particle walks into the bar and someone steps forward as the observer. It is a role that is designated, and not something that should have effort expended on analysis that choice, as long as it is sound (alice, bob). Save the brain cells for the thing with the name 'quantum' in it's name.

Once again, this is not a quantum argument, this is a classical case. In Quantum Mechanics, if you measure a particle and its wavefunction collapses say to be at some position x with certainty. Gandy not knowing where the particle is =/= wavefunction hasn't collapsed for Gandy. But once again, you don't even need the observer in some interpretations if you talk about decoherence or many worlds. The specialness of the observer is one of the things people like to criticize Quantum Mechanics about, but when it come right down to it, there is nothing at all special about the observer conscious or otherwise.

Seriously, at least glance at the Wikipedia page for the EPR paradox:
EPR - Wiki
In particular look at the section on interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Resolving the Paradox.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Nothing is real until it is observed in it's original state- so you have to dive into quantum state to understand it precisely, any other higher state is filled with half-truths because the observation is partial and one-dimensional. That's is when you disconnect senses and bring your mind into such a state where you can identify the real nature. There is a way to do this through meditation, ancient Indian and Greek philosophers usually observed this way. Is it a hypnotic state where you see winged creatures from heaven? No, it assumes you are already hypnotized and the mental experiments are all about de-hynotizing yourself. But the problem is there always a spiritual aspect associated so scientists choose to ignore it. PM me if you are interested, it's not at all wise to mention it here

I heard about this where somebody explored the the parallels of quantum mechanics with mystical teachings. Until there is some empirical proof that the consciousness of one can affect the surroundings, it's all hogwash to me.

As far as I know, consciousness is a one way device, to interpret and act on the world, not the other way around.

Although... I have read about "faith healing" and "miracles" but so far seem to be coincidences.

I'll tell you what consciousness is, it's like RAM in the computer. Imagine you are sitting in a room and you are aware of everything that's happening inside the room, you are aware where the table and other furniture is. Now imagine there are no walls, at that time your consciousness increases, so if you notice an object the mind pulls the meaning of that object into the consciousness. Due to the size of our bodies we limit our own observational capacity, we think it's impossible to observe the quantum states. But in fact we can be as big or small as we imagine us to be. I'm not asking you or anyone to believe what I say but I'm only suggesting that you shouldn't deny something you haven't personally experienced because that's degeneration and lack of individuality- too much dependence on what others have contributed to this world.

Here's a pic of what I'm trying to explain, it is completely based on my research.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
Choose a conscious observer; An old guy named Gandy, who has a notebook, and a pipe, and wears a magician hat. He's playing the role of conscious observer tonight. So if I go screwing around with a particle in a quantum state... how's Gandy to know? If he were to do tests on it, he himself would cause the state to collapse- so he would never establish I messed with it- he doesn't know about me. So to me, I am a conscious observer, to an imaginary absolute reference frame; I collapsed the state. But to poor old Gandy, he's still out in the park smoking and hypothesizing ways to test it without collapsing things, when 'the universe', shall we say (the imaginary absolute frame) knows I made the state collapse. You designate the observer how you'd like. It's not some quantum particle walks into the bar and someone steps forward as the observer. It is a role that is designated, and not something that should have effort expended on analysis that choice, as long as it is sound (alice, bob). Save the brain cells for the thing with the name 'quantum' in it's name.

Once again, this is not a quantum argument, this is a classical case. In Quantum Mechanics, if you measure a particle and its wavefunction collapses say to be at some position x with certainty. Gandy not knowing where the particle is =/= wavefunction hasn't collapsed for Gandy. But once again, you don't even need the observer in some interpretations if you talk about decoherence or many worlds. The specialness of the observer is one of the things people like to criticize Quantum Mechanics about, but when it come right down to it, there is nothing at all special about the observer conscious or otherwise.

Seriously, at least glance at the Wikipedia page for the EPR paradox:
EPR - Wiki
In particular look at the section on interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Resolving the Paradox.

I think he's talking about Wigner, which I do not think has too many fans these days nor do I agree with. For example, where does human consciousness come into play with Schroedinger's Cat?

What I don't like about Quantum Mechanics is that there seems to be a bevy of psuedo-philosphy that gets interjected into it when it is described to laymen or the general public. Quantum Mechanics has a very specific set of formalism that is very very difficult to distill down into simple explanations. For example, Feynman in his book on QED talks about clocks and the shortest path when describing the Feynman path integral of field theory. It's a philosophical explaination that belies the true rigorous formalism that is behind the theory. The EPR paradox with the clash between hidden variable and Copenhagen school is another example. On the surface it is generally described as almost a philosphical matter. Does Quantum Mechanics operate using a set of characteristics that we haven't been able to observe or measure that deterministically set the properties or are the properties ambiguous in accordance to the wave function until the moment of measurement? But underneath this is a real set of formalism and consequences. The two schools of thought are not the same, as Bell's theorem demonstrates.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What I don't like about Quantum Mechanics is that there seems to be a bevy of psuedo-philosphy that gets interjected into it when it is described to laymen or the general public. Quantum Mechanics has a very specific set of formalism that is very very difficult to distill down into simple explanations.

Bingo. I went out to dinner with my wife (she also has a physics degree) and we were chatting with our waiter and our background came up. He asked if we studied quantum mechanics. We said yes. He said he has a friend who studies it to and then started going off on some metaphysical discussion about thought and consciousness...

Also, you do NOT need a conscious observer to collapse a wavefunction. Imperfections in even the best quantum systems will cause your state to decohere before you measure it.

 

[iCyborg]

You can argue that this environmental decoherence standpoint is the most prevalent among mainstream physicists. But it's not the only one and there's no experimental evidence to rule out all the others. And in some of them observer does matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...m_mechanics#Comparison

 

[Aberforth]

pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
What I don't like about Quantum Mechanics is that there seems to be a bevy of psuedo-philosphy that gets interjected into it when it is described to laymen or the general public. Quantum Mechanics has a very specific set of formalism that is very very difficult to distill down into simple explanations.

Bingo. I went out to dinner with my wife (she also has a physics degree) and we were chatting with our waiter and our background came up. He asked if we studied quantum mechanics. We said yes. He said he has a friend who studies it to and then started going off on some metaphysical discussion about thought and consciousness...

Also, you do NOT need a conscious observer to collapse a wavefunction. Imperfections in even the best quantum systems will cause your state to decohere before you measure it.

Two physicists in the same house? Is that like having two bosons or two fermions in a potential well?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Metaphysics isn't physics. QM is a very rigorous, very mathematical treatment of a natural phenomenon. Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc. It's like saying something like: "My own research into material strengths and thought, and the higher truths of an extended plane of existence lead me to believe that we could build a bridge to the moon out of cheese."

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

Riiiight... and which one invented the transistor, without which you wouldn't be posting on the internet?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

Yeah, you have us there. The only thing I've ever seen them produce are pamphlets. It's a shame that all those real scientists devote their time so that we can have worldwide communications, space exploration, cheap energy, advanced healthcare equipment, computers, radios, flying machines, etc.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

Yeah, you have us there. The only thing I've ever seen them produce are pamphlets. It's a shame that all those real scientists devote their time so that we can have worldwide communications, space exploration, cheap energy, advanced healthcare equipment, computers, radios, flying machines, etc.

Yep, all tedious inventions designed to make themselves lazy and gain more free time. Machine dependency will one day devolve their minds and they will go back to their primitive forms before they can figure out what went wrong.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

Yeah, you have us there. The only thing I've ever seen them produce are pamphlets. It's a shame that all those real scientists devote their time so that we can have worldwide communications, space exploration, cheap energy, advanced healthcare equipment, computers, radios, flying machines, etc.

Yep, all tedious inventions designed to make themselves lazy and gain more free time. Machine dependency will one day devolve their minds and they will go back to their primitive forms before they can figure out what went wrong.

That's nice. You better get rid of your phones, television sets and computers before it's too late for yourself, I think you're already showing the danger signs.

Fact is, physicists for the most part don't really give a damn. Quantum Mechanics is formalism, mathematics and statistics (and maybe a few lies and damned lies thrown in just to confuse the random engineer that is sorry enough to wander in). Most of these interpretations do not, by necessity, differ in their results or consequences. But the serious ones do have strict formalism behind them. In some forms, it's easier to think of a problem using one interpretation over another. And there are consequences and differences between formulations, this can be seen most glaringly in the hidden variable interpretation and Bell's Theorem. However, as experiments are devised to test the possible differences these are weeded out if necessary.

The problem becomes when people hear about an intriguing idea and decide that it must be true (probably solely based on how cool the idea sounds). In terms of results, the Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, or say Transactional interpretations are the same. They are merely vehicles for looking at a problem, but not to explain the problem. Quantum Mechaics is not meant to explain how nature works. This rapid departure from more accessible physics, like say even Relativity, seems to make people want to latch onto these interpretations more than they should. They raise an entire philosophy on what is really nothing.

http://revver.com/video/99898/...g-the-tenth-dimension/

I watched this before and it is a wonderful thought exercise that gives a person a means of viewing higher dimensions. It's really a great way to look at topography. But I think it's representative of how sometimes people will latch onto a Quantum Mechanics interpretation. They take a starting concept and then expand it willy-nilly, regardless of whether or not it fits in anywhere with the actual theories of Quantum Mechanics. It's like a fad or something.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Aberforth
pseudo philosophy my foot...

This thread has proved something to me, I mean what's the point? If I regurgitate all the scientific theories, it is swallowed without any question but when metaphysics is proposed it is ridiculed.

One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth." so these various subjects whether it is science or metaphysics are there only for the purposes of adaption, all trying to reach the same truth through various intellectual vehicles. I dare not say ancient thinkers were superstitious because at the present time it is replaced by modern scientific superstitions which will be proved 200 years from now. It is only growing up of human beings through various conditions and circumstances, no one is superior- everyone is equally dumb.

Many laypeople talk about it using words like "I believe", "truth", etc.

You know what, such people are less likely to cause any trouble, at least they didn't invent nukes to blow themselves up. They didn't spend billions of taxpayers money to look for bacterias under the martian rocks since 70s. They are not laypeople, they are far more clever than all of the physicists put together.

Yeah, you have us there. The only thing I've ever seen them produce are pamphlets. It's a shame that all those real scientists devote their time so that we can have worldwide communications, space exploration, cheap energy, advanced healthcare equipment, computers, radios, flying machines, etc.

Yep, all tedious inventions designed to make themselves lazy and gain more free time. Machine dependency will one day devolve their minds and they will go back to their primitive forms before they can figure out what went wrong.

That's nice. You better get rid of your phones, television sets and computers before it's too late for yourself, I think you're already showing the danger signs.

I can't get rid of them when am already conditioned to use such things by the larger forces of community. Also Don't teach me quantum physics, my work involves research in Quantum Cryptography-that's exactly why I chose to answer this topic. I write computer software that deals with Quantum and Elliptic curve cryptography and Quantum Digital Hash algorithms. I write these programs for agencies affiliated with the government that keep records of offenders.

You are merely referring to the obsolete weirdo scientific garbage, it neither satisfies or inspires me. I've wasted countess hours of my precious time in researching Quantum mechanics- but only to get a degree. There is a thin line beyond which you cannot explain certain things through science because such things come from beyond the field of reasoning which are finer than the quantum states. Such information cannot be derived from senses- that's why you cannot explain, nevertheless they are true.

That's my conclusion on this topic...I'm done here.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
That's my conclusion on this topic...I'm done here.

Thank God, because some of us here actually want to intelligently discuss Quantum Mechanics and real science.

So silverpig, do you think that since both you and your wife are physicists that it is akin to bosons or fermions? I would have to think fermions because marriage would inherently require identifiability between the spouses. At the same time, it also enforces that the two of you are not on the same energy level. Oh sure, you can argue that you are equals, that both of you exist in two distinct but degenerate states. But I'm sure under certain conditions one of you gets raised up above another. A hyper-fine-I-wear-the-pants-in-this-family splitting if you will.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
There is a thin line beyond which you cannot explain certain things through science because such things come from beyond the field of reasoning which are finer than the quantum states. Such information cannot be derived from senses- that's why you cannot explain, nevertheless they are true.

This is the part that I don't understand. If you are generalizing by saying the human senses are flawed or that the human senses cannot derive meaning from quantum mechanics, how did you come to your conclusion? Are you not human? Are you not part of the universe?

Earlier you were trying to explain consciousness and I was following you until you got to the part "imagine you are sitting... and aware of everything... now imagine no walls... your consciousness increases." So far, you've just told me to imagine a bunch of stuff and somehow that translates to reality?

I just don't get it.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Aberforth
That's my conclusion on this topic...I'm done here.

Thank God, because some of us here actually want to intelligently discuss Quantum Mechanics and real science.

So silverpig, do you think that since both you and your wife are physicists that it is akin to bosons or fermions? I would have to think fermions because marriage would inherently require identifiability between the spouses. At the same time, it also enforces that the two of you are not on the same energy level. Oh sure, you can argue that you are equals, that both of you exist in two distinct but degenerate states. But I'm sure under certain conditions one of you gets raised up above another. A hyper-fine-I-wear-the-pants-in-this-family splitting if you will.

Well she's now a high school teacher so she's kind of gone Lewis-Dot on me. I'm in condensed matter right now so we can say we exhibit more of a classical vs quantum dichotomy.

Of course I'm trying to get into an MBA program, so I'm about to sell out

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
One great person said "Human beings are not traveling from error to truth but rather from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth."

If a man can realize his divine nature with the help of an image, would it be right to call that a sin? Nor even when he has passed that stage, should he call it an error. To the Hindu, man is not traveling from error to truth, but from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth. To him all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realize the Infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of these marks a stage of progress; and every soul is a young eagle soaring higher and higher, gathering more and more strength till it reaches the Glorious Sun.

Swami Vivekananda On Hinduism - Part Il

Reaches the Glorious Sun? Maybe I was right and you are one of those Star Trek energy beings? :sun:

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Reaches the Glorious Sun? Maybe I was right and you are one of those Star Trek energy beings? :sun:

You are one of those beings who is good for nothing, Nikola Tesla took classes from Vivekananda.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Reaches the Glorious Sun? Maybe I was right and you are one of those Star Trek energy beings? :sun:

You are one of those beings who is good for nothing, Nikola Tesla took classes from Vivekananda.

Okay. You don't award bonus points to those who take time to follow up on your posts. And you don't share my sense of humor. Maybe it's best that we do seem to live in separate realities. Beam me up Scotty...fast!

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Reaches the Glorious Sun? Maybe I was right and you are one of those Star Trek energy beings? :sun:

You are one of those beings who is good for nothing, Nikola Tesla took classes from Vivekananda.

Okay. You don't award bonus points to those who take time to follow up on your posts. And you don't share my sense of humor. Maybe it's best that we do seem to live in separate realities. Beam me up Scotty...fast!

Feel free to discuss real quantum physics, I said I'm done here but you quoted me.