New quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question

Aug 31, 2020
6
2
35
Without the capacity to perceive the occurrence of the falling tree, the event itself is in a state of occurring and not occurring until there is an observer. I think this is what they are driving at. To observe it more or less analogous to taking a measurement, and technically, this is what perception is; the mind's measurements of it's surroundings. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound...Physically we can argue the tree hitting the ground causes vibratory disturbances resulting in sound, but sound itself is only relevant because of the perceptual structures which enable us to process it. Thus the tree makes no sound, as there is nothing from which to detect it. The really intriguing question would be what occurs which we lack the sensory structures to detect when the tree falls?Or rather what aren't we perceiving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThinkTank
Aug 22, 2020
13
1
35
There are many different proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics:

Which one is the correct one?

IMHO, none of them & I think the (only) true/correct interpretation of QM is actually simple but also very profound:

Imagine that, our whole reality is actually a quantum computer (& so, rules of QM are actually its operating/computation rules)!!!

(& realize, that would also imply/mean, each quantum particle is actually a set of quantum computer state registers/variables (to make computations w/)!
For example, realize, both electric charge & rest mass of each elementary particle could be just a qutrit (in that particle) that can have one of 3 values: +1, 0, -1. (& also its color charge (R, G, B) would only require 1 qutrit!)
& so, realize, what needs to be done is, to determine how many qutrits each elementary particle has & how exactly they are used in computations, by our reality quantum computer!)
 
Mar 4, 2020
169
19
105
Quantum mechanics and the standard model have nothing to do with common sense. Common sense has to be nullified for those theories. The only model built on common sense is the Parson Magneton.
 
Jul 7, 2020
5
1
30
Now...let's not be self-important. Take the human thought equation out of the question and it all ends. The physical world will continue to work without the thoughts and expostulations of little better than amoeba creatures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks
May 26, 2020
3
1
15
So if nobody sees a super nova...it really never happened. Got it..... WRONG WRONG WRONG.....If a tree falls in a forest it makes a sound regardless if somebody is there to hear it.
How can you apply science and intellectual honest without mentioning a definition of terms? Thus saying that a tree doesn't make a sound or does make a sound, depends upon what sound is. Sound is an effect and those hearing have a measuring device consisting of the eardrum and the network connecting it to a detection device, part of the brain. It is not so much that removal of a person means the sound isn't being measured, or maybe it is. Sound waves have a character/composition that make them up. Measurement can be done on a scope designed to detect the waves themselves, for example 440 vibrations per second (the A tone or sound). The vibrations caused by the tree falling in a forest are in fact present. So the cause portion is present. But if sound is defined as something that is heard but there is no organism with hearing detection present, perhaps there is no sound. There is no sound detection device, only a device detecting the vibrations of a transmission as they travel through a medium. In each scientific experiment both the variables and the definition of terms must be at least considered, if not laid out and defined and controlled, or the experiment has no chance of being replicated either successfully or even unsuccessfully. As far as existence is concerned, there is space and that which is in it. From all experience, within space, motion is found. Time has to do with energy and matter have a vector attached to it. All efforts at measurement have demonstrated to our senses and our understanding that the stuff of the universe has not only motion, but interactive motion and also has as a result of the interactions, vectors. Predicting them is another matter in terms of any measurement chosen. Randomness and chaos appear to be present when the organization of time and motion are quantified through measurement and experiment. This makes perfect sense, as time itself is either slowed down or stopped, relative to what exists. Therefore what is being measured does not exist as it exists when the measurement is observed. This appears to happen particularly at the micro level with both energy and matter. It also seems to have an infinite number of variables as to what is conceived as being, "out there," in space, both that which we've thus far measured and that which we have neither discovered yet, nor measured yet. Measurement always involves altering of time. How closely our instruments can measure it, depend upon more than just the obvious. In a track meet, sensors measure the reaction of the runner against the blocks once the gun has gone off. (already movements and sound and elapsed time and reaction time are involved, even if to a very small amount, affecting accuracy of the measurement. Then a phototimer using electronic devices along with a camera capture what has just occurred. This equipment has replace an observer, the runners, sound of the starter gun and a stopwatch both started and stopped by humans at the sound of the gun and the moment the plane of the finish line is broken by the runner's body or body part. For the purposes of recording runners' times and placements, this has been good enough. As refinements in timing has been developed the places to the right of the decimal point in terms of seconds, have been extended. The accuracy is increased, but only by very finite amounts. Perhaps if the determinate part of the runners' bodies is more accurately measured, ties would be eliminated. A tie at point zero, zero, zero, might not be a tie if one could develop a discriminate device that could go to the molecular or even the atomic structure. On the other hand, for these purposes, surely what we have now is good enough. Another slightly different example would be the race of swimmers which has added the final touch to the formula. Even this discussion involves variable that cannot be accounted for. In science, often, the expression, "...all other things being equal..." tends to replace the effort to discover and enumerate all variables and to account for them during an experiment. In our own, every day physical reality, we have accepted, "...good enough..." with regards to measurement in many cases. For example the property survey. The variable of the planet itself cannot completely account for differences in surveys, but in general, over a very large number of land surveys with our current equipment, we as human beings have reached that point where, "good enough," not only will have to do, it appears to do rather nicely in most cases. As always, the stoppage of time is in fact a part of the process of the measurement. Newton, and the other mathematicians seem to have been good enough to measure this form of reality for all, "practical purposes." AF
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks
Feb 28, 2020
37
17
55
Hi, you use the word random, what do you understand by random? This article is partly about cause and effect. I believe cause and effect always dominate so, therefore, I believe in determinism. In this belief, there's no such thing as random.

Please can you break up any future text with paragraphs please, it's difficult reading, Thanks:)
 
Sep 6, 2020
1
0
10
This is probably a dumb question cos I'm kind of an idiot but why can't they do this experiment with real people to see what happens? I mean, putting a couple of people in a room to measure some particles and having two more people wait outside with coins to flip seems like a thing that could be done, right? No?
 
May 26, 2020
3
1
15
The universe and its abundance of life on the earth is indeed a "quantum paradox", for there are so many postulated views of how it all arose, if it is measureable, or is this just a "dream" ? For example, was Albert Einstein always right ? No.

In his General Theory of Relativity of 1915 (published in 1916, where space and time seems to be interlocked [or "married"], "curves the fabric of space" or space itself is bent around massive objects [spacetime curvature], and in which he had spent 10 years working on this theory), Albert Einstein assumed that the universe was stagnant, with all the stars just sitting there, like "a bump on a log"

It was not until his visit to the Mt Wilson Observatory in California in 1931 and discussing it with Edwin Hubble, whereby he was shown that the universe is bigger than once imagined and is in motion, expanding rapidly, that he realized what he called his "greatest cosmological blunder".

And then in December 1934, he felt that harnessing nuclear energy would be a "miracle" that was considered as "impossible", saying: "There is not the slightest indication that (nuclear energy) will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will".(Note: Enrico Fermi had discovered earlier in 1934, that if you bombard uranium with neutrons (or fission), uranium splits into lighter elements, releasing powerful energy. However Einstein was still skeptical, until in 1939, his skepticism was overtaken by the ever increasing knowledge of fission, in which the United States government began the Manhattan Project in that year)

It is now understood that "general relativity remains an incomplete description of gravity", and how general relativity can be reconciled with quantum (or particle) physics. And this belief that the stars were stagnant or non-moving and that the earth was the center of the known universe actually was put forth by Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.).

The Greek astronomer Ptolemy (about 100 C.E. ? - 170 C.E. ?) explored the heavens with his eyes alone, tracking the planets across the night sky and was skilled as a mapmaker. But he believed, as Aristotle taught, that the earth was the center of everything. Astrophysicist Carl Sagan (1934-1996 C.E.) wrote of Ptolemy: “His Earth-centered universe held sway for 1,500 years, a reminder that intellectual capacity is no guarantee against being dead wrong.”

So, with all the different (and ever changing) views (or more accurately conjectures, speculations, theories) buzzing around, it is wise to put one's faith in them as "cast into stone" ? Consider what an ancient Israelite king named Solomon (reigned 1037-998 B.C.E.) wrote for our benefit: "The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step".(Prov 14:15 in the Bible)

Thus, who is the one that we can place our implicit trust in, that never fails to tell the truth and is an unfailing guide for us ? In the Bible, at Isaiah 48, it says: "This is what Jehovah (God's personal name) says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: "I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One guiding you in the way you should walk".(Isa 48:17)

And at Isaiah 42, it states: "This is what the true God, Jehovah, says, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One who stretched them out, the One who spread out the earth and its produce, the One who gives breath to the people on it and spirit (or life force, like applying electricity to an appliance so that it comes to "life") to those who walk on it".(Isa 42:5)

Therefore, when it comes to matters regarding the future, our future, we can, without reservation and not be a "quantum paradox", turn to Jehovah God for guidance and see what he has in store for mankind.(see Isa 25:6-9; 33:24)
The above is excellent and well organized. To believe in an intelligent creator with all the powers attributed to God, is indeed a choice. In a sense, this is one of the few choices of free will tham mankind has. Freedom of choice is an interesting concept because since the beginning of communication of any kind among humans and maybe among animals, the parts of the kingdom in let's say, early man (and women of course) involved attempts to convince people to do one thing or another. Thus convinced or not a choice among two or more options was made. In some cases it may have meant death and in others it may have meant choosing a partner to mate with for life. (May have.) The point is that these were choices. Fast forward to today and there is so much information around. It's everywhere. education is formal and informal. There is self learning through one's active senses and experience and there is learning from the environment and others in both the human and animal kingdoms that, "teach," and therefore shape choices. In some cases the education and subsequent decisions followed by behavior(s) seem logical and in some cases, less than logical. Either way, choices lead to a specific behavior that might have or could have been different. Once could argue that the macro environment limits those choices. Once could also argue that the local environment limits choices. Folkways and morays are a group effort of attempting to predetermine choices and also to limit them. Taking all limiting factors of choice (ability to think in advance about what course to take or what to do) and taking into account all the variables within the environment and within the human organism, which themselves vary, appear to naturally limit choices. The more one thinks about it, the more choices are limited. To vote or not to vote? To vote for one candidate or another. Both are limited to a very few choices. The whole world isn't necessarily a person's Oyster (of choices). The expressions have various meanings depending upon their context. Perhaps the creation and all that has happened in it is just random chaos rules by some of the rules of and laws of physics of various kinds. Perhaps as time and motions continue, choices become more and more limited. It that is true, limitations of different kinds, over choices were set in motion long ago. For example the various sizes of Black Holes and what they can do and what they do do, come to mind. Once in their state as black holes with their own set of physics, the black hole starts to pull in material around it, as has been shown in the photographs of the waves that represent the images. It shows the magnetism and it even shows the qualities of the black hole as material is pulled in with a certain and particular shape. Just like water spinning down a drain, forces show that spin cycle at work as the hold tears apart various space objects and/or pulls them near by and then to the event horizen and then continuing within the meaning of Black Hole Physics, to pull the material in and also to affect its makeup is some sort of fashion. We haven't mastered Black hole physics, so assumptions about information preservation are speculative at best. That's what I've perceived and noticed and that's my idea and story and I'm sticking to it. Alex Ford
 
Jun 11, 2020
6
2
35
How can you apply science and intellectual honest without mentioning a definition of terms? Thus saying that a tree doesn't make a sound or does make a sound, depends upon what sound is. Sound is an effect and those hearing have a measuring device consisting of the eardrum and the network connecting it to a detection device, part of the brain. It is not so much that removal of a person means the sound isn't being measured, or maybe it is. Sound waves have a character/composition that make them up. Measurement can be done on a scope designed to detect the waves themselves, for example 440 vibrations per second (the A tone or sound). The vibrations caused by the tree falling in a forest are in fact present. So the cause portion is present. But if sound is defined as something that is heard but there is no organism with hearing detection present, perhaps there is no sound. There is no sound detection device, only a device detecting the vibrations of a transmission as they travel through a medium. In each scientific experiment both the variables and the definition of terms must be at least considered, if not laid out and defined and controlled, or the experiment has no chance of being replicated either successfully or even unsuccessfully. As far as existence is concerned, there is space and that which is in it. From all experience, within space, motion is found. Time has to do with energy and matter have a vector attached to it. All efforts at measurement have demonstrated to our senses and our understanding that the stuff of the universe has not only motion, but interactive motion and also has as a result of the interactions, vectors. Predicting them is another matter in terms of any measurement chosen. Randomness and chaos appear to be present when the organization of time and motion are quantified through measurement and experiment. This makes perfect sense, as time itself is either slowed down or stopped, relative to what exists. Therefore what is being measured does not exist as it exists when the measurement is observed. This appears to happen particularly at the micro level with both energy and matter. It also seems to have an infinite number of variables as to what is conceived as being, "out there," in space, both that which we've thus far measured and that which we have neither discovered yet, nor measured yet. Measurement always involves altering of time. How closely our instruments can measure it, depend upon more than just the obvious. In a track meet, sensors measure the reaction of the runner against the blocks once the gun has gone off. (already movements and sound and elapsed time and reaction time are involved, even if to a very small amount, affecting accuracy of the measurement. Then a phototimer using electronic devices along with a camera capture what has just occurred. This equipment has replace an observer, the runners, sound of the starter gun and a stopwatch both started and stopped by humans at the sound of the gun and the moment the plane of the finish line is broken by the runner's body or body part. For the purposes of recording runners' times and placements, this has been good enough. As refinements in timing has been developed the places to the right of the decimal point in terms of seconds, have been extended. The accuracy is increased, but only by very finite amounts. Perhaps if the determinate part of the runners' bodies is more accurately measured, ties would be eliminated. A tie at point zero, zero, zero, might not be a tie if one could develop a discriminate device that could go to the molecular or even the atomic structure. On the other hand, for these purposes, surely what we have now is good enough. Another slightly different example would be the race of swimmers which has added the final touch to the formula. Even this discussion involves variable that cannot be accounted for. In science, often, the expression, "...all other things being equal..." tends to replace the effort to discover and enumerate all variables and to account for them during an experiment. In our own, every day physical reality, we have accepted, "...good enough..." with regards to measurement in many cases. For example the property survey. The variable of the planet itself cannot completely account for differences in surveys, but in general, over a very large number of land surveys with our current equipment, we as human beings have reached that point where, "good enough," not only will have to do, it appears to do rather nicely in most cases. As always, the stoppage of time is in fact a part of the process of the measurement. Newton, and the other mathematicians seem to have been good enough to measure this form of reality for all, "practical purposes." AF

Light too, makes a sound.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
So if nobody sees a super nova...it really never happened. Got it..... WRONG WRONG WRONG.....If a tree falls in a forest it makes a sound regardless if somebody is there to hear it.
Without the capacity to perceive the occurrence of the falling tree, the event itself is in a state of occurring and not occurring until there is an observer. I think this is what they are driving at. To observe it more or less analogous to taking a measurement, and technically, this is what perception is; the mind's measurements of it's surroundings. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound...Physically we can argue the tree hitting the ground causes vibratory disturbances resulting in sound, but sound itself is only relevant because of the perceptual structures which enable us to process it. Thus the tree makes no sound, as there is nothing from which to detect it. The really intriguing question would be what occurs which we lack the sensory structures to detect when the tree falls?Or rather what aren't we perceiving?
Well we see the tree laying on the ground and according to the laws of physics the tree would have made a mess with alot of vibrations. What are vibrations? Sound... the real question is if the bugs,animals,heck even if the bacteria can hear or feel the vibration from the tree falling. Well there we have it .. the tree definitely made a noise
 
Aug 31, 2020
6
2
35
Well we see the tree laying on the ground and according to the laws of physics the tree would have made a mess with alot of vibrations. What are vibrations? Sound... the real question is if the bugs,animals,heck even if the bacteria can hear or feel the vibration from the tree falling. Well there we have it .. the tree definitely made a noise
This can only be confirmed with an operator present, which is the point. With no observer or operator to measure such changes, you can't say it is so...The basis of your argument pretty much bypasses any need to observe the change; because to confirm what you say as valid would require an observer or observers to test this. With no observer to prove this is so, on a quantum scale it would be both true and false simultaneously until an operator makes an observation; which in and of it'self is a measurement.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
This can only be confirmed with an operator present, which is the point. With no observer or operator to measure such changes, you can't say it is so...The basis of your argument pretty much bypasses any need to observe the change; because to confirm what you say as valid would require an observer or observers to test this. With no observer to prove this is so, on a quantum scale it would be both true and false simultaneously until an operator makes an observation; which in and of it'self is a measurement.
Good point. I've also wondered about quantum physics stating no 2 observers observe the same thing. On a different lvl you could say what I would perceive as an apple fruit could be another observers orange fruit . But growing up knowing these things the person that an apple looks like an orange couldn't tell me other wise. Thats just another observers apple...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamo72
Aug 31, 2020
6
2
35
Good point. I've also wondered about quantum physics stating no 2 observers observe the same thing. On a different lvl you could say what I would perceive as an apple fruit could be another observers orange fruit . But growing up knowing these things the person that an apple looks like an orange couldn't tell me other wise. Thats just another observers apple...
What make it more interesting is when we throw in the notion that reality may be a simulation. So from this premise, we would say that much like a computer code, the active observation seems to trigger the emergence of either 1 or 0... If one observer observes fruit A as an "apple", then in that observer's mental framework fruit "a" is an apple. Its possible in the other observer's universe Oranges in the first observers universe are actually apples and apples are oranges. So both agree they see an apple, only the apple to observer a is entirely different to the apple of observer be....

It would be like two different reality filters arriving at the same conclusion with no notion of how different the QUALITY of the observation is. Science is really fascinating, but it's shortcoming and where we often get stuck is that we can only analyze quantity and not quality...

So in person a's reality filter, and person b's reality filter, the quantities remain the same...Qualities are different. To drive the example further home, would be that red to person a is orange to person b....Quantum physics comes eerily close to hitting the quality aspect that other subdivisions of science may not acknowledge...the implications are that things may be far stranger than we could imagine if we don't dive down into such depths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThinkTank
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
What make it more interesting is when we throw in the notion that reality may be a simulation. So from this premise, we would say that much like a computer code, the active observation seems to trigger the emergence of either 1 or 0... If one observer observes fruit A as an "apple", then in that observer's mental framework fruit "a" is an apple. Its possible in the other observer's universe Oranges in the first observers universe are actually apples and apples are oranges. So both agree they see an apple, only the apple to observer a is entirely different to the apple of observer be....

It would be like two different reality filters arriving at the same conclusion with no notion of how different the QUALITY of the observation is. Science is really fascinating, but it's shortcoming and where we often get stuck is that we can only analyze quantity and not quality...

So in person a's reality filter, and person b's reality filter, the quantities remain the same...Qualities are different. To drive the example further home, would be that red to person a is orange to person b....Quantum physics comes eerily close to hitting the quality aspect that other subdivisions of science may not acknowledge...the implications are that things may be far stranger than we could imagine if we don't dive down into such depths.
That maybe why it is said that quantity (Math representing numbers) is the language of the universe. But then again if we are talking about being in a simulation. Then if we can say observer A is the being connected to the simulation. Then there will be no observer B. Because observer B would be apart of the programming . Now if observer B had a physical self, the being would have an entirely different simulation that was connected. then observer B would become the main and there would be no observer A . Observer A would Just be apart of the programming . In further explanation. Observers would be in their own universe(simulation). With just the programming set all around the observer.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
There are many different proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics:

Which one is the correct one?

IMHO, none of them & I think the (only) true/correct interpretation of QM is actually simple but also very profound:

Imagine that, our whole reality is actually a quantum computer (& so, rules of QM are actually its operating/computation rules)!!!

(& realize, that would also imply/mean, each quantum particle is actually a set of quantum computer state registers/variables (to make computations w/)!
For example, realize, both electric charge & rest mass of each elementary particle could be just a qutrit (in that particle) that can have one of 3 values: +1, 0, -1. (& also its color charge (R, G, B) would only require 1 qutrit!)
& so, realize, what needs to be done is, to determine how many qutrits each elementary particle has & how exactly they are used in computations, by our reality quantum computer!)
Then after that, figure out what the (qutrits) are made of.. I tell ya I have a strong feeling the future of science is gonna get even more awesome.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
So if nobody sees a super nova...it really never happened. Got it..... WRONG WRONG WRONG.....If a tree falls in a forest it makes a sound regardless if somebody is there to hear it.
I agree like the tree falling in the forest.. there will be vibrations regardless if there was an observer which We just perceive the vibrations as sound.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
Why can't we make a nanoscope? I'm not talking about an electron tunneling micro scope that can feel the atoms. I'm talking about build a micro scope that looks into an even smaller scope that looks into an even smaller scope and so on. I understand when you peer into such small scales, material dont act the same. Like when you take a material and cut it into smaller and smaller sizes they start to change colors. There has to be a way to make a reflective property on such a small scale.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
So if nobody sees a super nova...it really never happened. Got it..... WRONG WRONG WRONG.....If a tree falls in a forest it makes a sound regardless if somebody is there to hear it.
So let's put a deaf person and a normal hearing person by the tree that falls. Normal hearing person says there was a sound and the deaf person would say there was not a sound who can say who is right. You just have to add common sense into the equation at this point.
 
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
Feb 28, 2020
37
17
55
Why can't we make a nanoscope? I'm not talking about an electron tunneling micro scope that can feel the atoms. I'm talking about build a micro scope that looks into an even smaller scope that looks into an even smaller scope and so on. I understand when you peer into such small scales, material dont act the same. Like when you take a material and cut it into smaller and smaller sizes they start to change colors. There has to be a way to make a reflective property on such a small scale.
You can't see smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength of light, the wavelength of blue light is ~ 460 nanometers or 460/1,000,000,000 meters = .46 thousandths of a mm. The diameter of an atom is .1 to .5 nanometers and a proton is ~ 1 millionth of a nanometer. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ThinkTank
Sep 3, 2020
31
3
55
You can't see smaller than 1/4 of the wavelength of light, the wavelength of blue light is ~ 460 nanometers or 460/1,000,000,000 meters = .46 thousandths of a mm. The diameter of an atom is .1 to .5 nanometers and a proton is ~ 1 millionth of a nanometer. :)
Why can you not see less than a 1/4 of the wavelength of light?is it because we need a little light to see what is there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David J Franks
Feb 28, 2020
37
17
55
Why can you not see less than a 1/4 of the wavelength of light?is it because we need a little light to see what is there?
Good question. My best guess is it's that light comes in quanta or packets called photons, so reflected light comes back with at least the minimum quanta ie 1 photon, you can't reflect less than a photon's worth of energy. So, I guess If the object does not have enough surface area to reflect at least one photon then you won't see anything, the light wave will just pass round.

Likewise, radar won't detect a butterfly and sonar won't detect an amoeba, because the wavelength is too long, and will just pass round. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThinkTank

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts