the last days of fear

[Neverfly]

the introduction of a particular perspective altered the outcome distinctively. the difference wasn't in the way the outcome was measured, it was in the behavior of the electrons themselves, upon the addition of the observer. that wasn't random.

What?!
No, you don't understand.

The wave function of a system is a series of probabilities as to the outcome.

Since observation determines the outcome, the wave function collapses since the outcome is now determined instead of a series of probabilities.

The behavior of the experiment is Not Altered By Observation.

how about a biological example that's more concrete...your thoughts (often but not necessarily tied with emotions) trigger the production and release of chemicals that alter the nature of the cells in your body. those changes are accumulated over time and passed down genetically.

How does that support religion at all?
It's a classic system of cause and effect.

how about nutrition...our thoughts determine what we ingest and why. the quality of our food, water, and air. they determine what we eat and why and when and how much. they determine how and if we grow it, how and if we process it, and how we handle it. nutrition obviously has an impact on the human body like a mack truck, and that impact is accumulated over time and passed down genetically.

I have no idea what you are trying to drive at here.

Our thoughts mean little as to what we eat. We can only eat by what is available.
And we don't seem to think much on it. When plenty is available, we end up with a bunch of fat people.
When famine hits, we end up with emaciated people.


You have not supported your claim that science supports your supernatural beliefs AT ALL.

The only thing you've demonstrated is that you have Heavy Misconceptions about science.

 

[Lori_7]

What?!
No, you don't understand.

The wave function of a system is a series of probabilities as to the outcome.

Since observation determines the outcome, the wave function collapses since the outcome is now determined instead of a series of probabilities.

The behavior of the experiment is Not Altered By Observation.

you're right, i don't understand how the observation can determine the outcome and yet not alter it at the same time. determining it is altering it. the alteration is the determination. yeah?

How does that support religion at all?
It's a classic system of cause and effect.

gosh, in lots of ways. in relation to prayer and meditation, healing, faith, and the real manifestation of those things. the whole concept of religion is thought oriented. there's always some philosophy that is supposed to back up the practice. i know the bible is profoundly thought oriented. you sin in your mind. you believe in your mind. you seek the truth and do not entertain lies. you think on good things, not evil things. you change your mind, and the rest falls in line.

in my own experience with god, it has always been about changing my mind. we can have all the experiences in the world, yet without a mind, have no knowledge.

I have no idea what you are trying to drive at here.

Our thoughts mean little as to what we eat. We can only eat by what is available.
And we don't seem to think much on it. When plenty is available, we end up with a bunch of fat people.
When famine hits, we end up with emaciated people.

that's not entirely true. i can't think of a good reason for people to be fat. can you? i don't care how much is available, or what is available. that's where the thought process comes in...what, how much, when, and why? and in a global community with abundant resources i would argue that there should be no famine. again, this is where the thought process comes in. what if we were all to decide to share our resources freely with one another and not be greedy, gluttonous, and wasteful?

You have not supported your claim that science supports your supernatural beliefs AT ALL.

The only thing you've demonstrated is that you have Heavy Misconceptions about science.

no i don't. i just think the term "supernatural" is kind of an oxymoron. :shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

you're right, i don't understand how the observation can determine the outcome and yet not alter it at the same time. determining it is altering it. the alteration is the determination. yeah?

Do you know what the word "determine" means?

It means To Make Known.

If a soda is either Pepsi or Coke, but you don't know which, it's [pepsi/coke]
If you then look at the can and see that it says, "Coke" on the side, the wave function collapses to [coke]

Observation did not alter the outcome.

 

[Lori_7]

Do you know what the word "determine" means?

It means To Make Known.

If a soda is either Pepsi or Coke, but you don't know which, it's [pepsi/coke]
If you then look at the can and see that it says, "Coke" on the side, the wave function collapses to [coke]

Observation did not alter the outcome.

determination also means to cause, direct, or limit. where is the "coke" sign in that experiment?

 

[Neverfly]

determination also means to cause, direct, or limit. where is the "coke" sign in that experiment?

I just answered you.

 

[Yosef]

I have just seen the video and I can declare that there is no God except Allah and that Muhammad and the earlier messengers are the prophets of God. I will be around, all after God's will and mercy. Best wishes.

 

[Lori_7]

I just answered you.

i mean in the double slit experiment...what is the coke sign in that experiment?

 

[Lori_7]

I have just seen the video and I can declare that there is no God except Allah and that Muhammad and the earlier messengers are the prophets of God. I will be around, all after God's will and mercy. Best wishes.

does that mean you're in or out?

 

[Neverfly]

i mean in the double slit experiment...what is the coke sign in that experiment?

I don't understand what you are asking...


In the Double Slit experiment, you have a wave function as well. You have a series of probabilities, until observation eliminates which probabilities do not come to pass and that is why the wave function collapses.
Those probabilities were eliminated for not happening. But the events would have happened in exactly the same way had the process not been observed at all.
The only reason we deal with that wave function at all is because our measurements require that we "propose" the wave function to account for what we cannot see directly.
We cannot measure the speed AND the position of a particle at the same time (Obviously!)
Because of this, we must present a wave function to represent them both.

 

[NMSquirrel]

In the Double Slit experiment, you have a wave function as well. You have a series of probabilities, until observation eliminates which probabilities do not come to pass and that is why the wave function collapses.
Those probabilities were eliminated for not happening. But the events would have happened in exactly the same way had the process not been observed at all.
The only reason we deal with that wave function at all is because our measurements require that we "propose" the wave function to account for what we cannot see directly.
We cannot measure the speed AND the position of a particle at the same time (Obviously!)
Because of this, we must present a wave function to represent them both.

funny..i just posted something about Schrodinger cat..
this is the other one..
The Humane Society has placed up for adoption a lovable cat that was recently removed from the laboratory of a noted physicist. The animal was abused repeatedly, having been exposed to poisonous gas and also being placed in close proximity to radioactivity. Cruel experiments like this cannot be tolerated. The owner has been charged with numerous counts of animal cruelty. Dr. Schrodinger's cat is recovering nicely, however.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't understand what you are asking...

it was a legitimate question, but apparently a rhetorical one. there is no coke sign in that experiment.

In the Double Slit experiment, you have a wave function as well. You have a series of probabilities, until observation eliminates which probabilities do not come to pass and that is why the wave function collapses.

how does observation eliminate probabilities that exist prior to observation?

Those probabilities were eliminated for not happening.

why?

But the events would have happened in exactly the same way had the process not been observed at all.

that's not what the experiment shows.

The only reason we deal with that wave function at all is because our measurements require that we "propose" the wave function to account for what we cannot see directly.
We cannot measure the speed AND the position of a particle at the same time (Obviously!)
Because of this, we must present a wave function to represent them both.

so even you can agree that there are things going on in the world that you can't see, and have to develop theories to account for? is that correct?

 

[Neverfly]

it was a legitimate question, but apparently a rhetorical one. there is no coke sign in that experiment.

Are you just making fun of the analogy?

how does observation eliminate probabilities that exist prior to observation?

They don't and I never said that they did. Why would you ask that?

that's not what the experiment shows.

Yes, it is. I notice that you only offered up denial. You offered no explanation nor description as to what it shows.
Because you clearly do not know what the experiment shows.

so even you can agree that there are things going on in the world that you can't see, and have to develop theories to account for? is that correct?

I can agree that there are things that cannot be directly observed but still have falsifiable and tangible evidence that supports them.
I cannot "see" the wind, but I can see a lot of physical evidence for it.
Air has weight. It has properties. It can be measured.
I cannot see a leprechaun and there is no falsifiable evidence that leprechauns exist at all, except for strange people claiming that leprechauns do exist and that they feel they know that to be true.

 

[Lori_7]

Are you just making fun of the analogy?

no. i'm just trying to make it. and it's not working without a coke sign.

They don't and I never said that they did. Why would you ask that?

because the experiment shows that those probabilities existed prior to observation, just as much as the determination showed after the observation.

Yes, it is. I notice that you only offered up denial. You offered no explanation nor description as to what it shows.
Because you clearly do not know what the experiment shows.

it shows that the introduction of an observer changes things. that is exactly what religion teaches people.

I can agree that there are things that cannot be directly observed but still have falsifiable and tangible evidence that supports them.

me too...duh.

I cannot "see" the wind, but I can see a lot of physical evidence for it.

it's so funny; you're practically preaching...

John 3

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Air has weight. It has properties. It can be measured.

so that we can dissect it, pollute it, artificially produce it, and sell it at a profit? super.

the spirit has weight, and properties, and can be measured. i've observed that in my life like an apple repeatedly falling on my head without the notion of gravity.

I cannot see a leprechaun and there is no falsifiable evidence that leprechauns exist at all, except for strange people claiming that leprechauns do exist and that they feel they know that to be true.

i've never seen a leprechaun.

 

[Neverfly]

because the experiment shows that those probabilities existed prior to observation, just as much as the determination showed after the observation.

it shows that the introduction of an observer changes things. that is exactly what religion teaches people.

No, it does not.
The ONLY thing an observer does is SEE the result.
But whether or not an observer is there, or not, does not change that result.

 

[Lori_7]

ok! so 3 pages, and 325 views later, i'm left with a conclusion about whether people are "in" or not. it's disappointing.

people imo seem to cling to their reasons not to be "in".

do we really want to keep clinging to our reasons not to love each other? do we want to live in fear? i think we're conditioned to it, and biologically adapted to it, but can anyone change their mind?

certainly in this day and age of modern technology and science, we're figuring out everything else, can we not figure out how to love each other? perhaps no one is interested in that. can you make a profit from it? some, including myself, say that wealth isn't measured in dollars.

i say, "dollars kill people".

now i know that yosef and some others would rather stab themselves in the eye with a plastic fork than watch this video because there are scantily clad women making out with people, but seriously, when are we going to put down our facades and our swords and actually love each other? when are we going to stop making up excuses as to why we shouldn't? how much history, religion, and science do we really need to show us the way? is it even trying to? do we care, or is it just fine with us if it doesn't? does anyone really want to love each other or do people really want to cling to their reasons not to, whatever they might be? so are you in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M90tA302X3k&ob=av2n

 

[Lori_7]

No, it does not.
The ONLY thing an observer does is SEE the result.
But whether or not an observer is there, or not, does not change that result.

that's not what the experiment showed. the observation determined the result.

 

[Neverfly]

that's not what the experiment showed. the observation determined the result.

More denial...

Ok, let me try quoting wikipedia:
Read it CAREFULLY...

There is a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors are placed in either or both of the two slits in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector even in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern. The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, time could be required for each to interact with its detector and they would most likely fall out of step with each other—that is, they would decohere. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected.[13]

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

However, if the two paths are reunited then it becomes impossible to determine by which single path a photon might have arrived after the reunion. (Imagine an Interstate highway that takes a northern path around a city, I-1000 North, and a southern path around the city, I-1000 South. While a car is north of the city it is clear that it has traveled by way of I-1000 North, but after its path merges with traffic from I-1000 South neither it nor any other car can be identified as having gone north or south of the city.)

Note that the issue here is not that Observation changes physics... Or changes a particle.

The issue here is The Uncertainty Principle at work.
A person cannot Measure the Wave at the same time as he measures the Particle.
He cannot measure the particle at the same time as the wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavenumber of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa).

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.

 

[Yosef]

@LORI

It is not that I hate scantily clad women making out with people. Yes, I don't like looking at them since they are not doing what God likes. I would be disobeying God if I look at them (that is enjoying it and keep looking). I believe firmly that one cannot guide people to the straight path without acceptance and love. You cannot achieve much by criticizing. You need to explain to them why it is better to have descent clothes on. btw, it is not better for themselves only but for society as a whole.

 

[CptBork]

what you're saying is NOT what the experiment showed.

what the experiment showed is that on a quantum level, there exists a spectrum, if not an infinite number of possibilities, and what is actually determined depends upon an observer.

In a real experiment, the eyeball shown by What the Bleep is not the "observer". An eyeball wouldn't be able to see the electron until you shine a light on it (still would need assistance of magnification equipment, but if you sit in a pitch black room, your eye can pick up a few photons at a time from a microscope and you'll notice a flash). Shining the light is where the "observation" occurs. There's nothing magical about an electron "knowing" it's being observed and having its wave collapse, light would also interfere with the electron even if we were just dealing with old-fashioned 19th century classical electrodynamics. Consciousness doesn't come up in any of this, it just makes a good argument for selling religious propaganda and video tapes.

In any case, usually the techniques for "observing" the electron are a lot more complicated than just bouncing light off it, and What the Bleep's depiction of it is a drastic over-simplification of a drastic over-simplification. But make no mistake, every method we've ever used to observe something at the quantum level involves some sort of physical, material interaction with it. Doesn't mean people shouldn't still love each other just because atoms don't have any love.

 

[CptBork]

@LORI

It is not that I hate scantily clad women making out with people. Yes, I don't like looking at them since they are not doing what God likes. I would be disobeying God if I look at them (that is enjoying it and keep looking). I believe firmly that one cannot guide people to the straight path without acceptance and love. You cannot achieve much by criticizing. You need to explain to them why it is better to have descent clothes on. btw, it is not better for themselves only but for society as a whole.

I figure if there was a God, and he/she/it had such a big problem with scantily-clad women, then it/she/he would have made them grow fur everywhere to cover it up. Of course, it's your choice whether or not to look in the first place, and you do have the option of staying in your own private home where you can make everyone wear Darth Vader suits if that's how you get your kicks. It's not the woman's responsibility to hide herself from view just for your sake.