What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Gibson Guitar Pack view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - A Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) carol about the righteousness of the Gibson Guitar Pack.
199 Comments
- mjoe, on 05/03/2009, -5/+27It's already been proved that the world does exist without us observing it:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm? ... - dwandschneider, on 05/02/2009, -4/+25Interesting. I have heard things like this before. I am always curious, though. What does it get us? I mean HOW does one treat the living systems as part of the equation?
- lostlyrics, on 05/02/2009, -5/+23actually old ideas, but freshly connected
and even edged to create an experiment. - novenator, on 05/02/2009, -5/+21The anthropic principle is fascinating and this article was mind boggling. http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/an ...
- Dougman82, on 05/03/2009, -3/+18Or maybe you aren't very familiar with the experiment. You can know what happened by observing the effects. For example, placing the slits in front of a material with some fluorescent coating means that any electrons hitting its surface will fluoresce, thereby showing exactly where they ended up.
According to the experiment, the final observed pattern of where the particles end up shows an interference pattern - exactly how waves behave under the same conditions. Conversely, when observation is attempted, the particles do not exhibit the interference pattern, but rather just pass through "like a bullet." - eco57, on 05/02/2009, -1/+15That's what the last part of the article was about. By bringing quantum effects into the realm of our physical perceptions, we can learn how they interact.
- noumuon, on 05/03/2009, -0/+13it's wording like this that causes confusion about what the two slit experiment implies.
when you "observe" which slit the particle passes through, you have to use something to measure which slit. this is done traditionally with other particles or a magnetic field. it's a change in these measuring devices that allows us to know which slit it went through. the problem with that is you're adding a disturbance to the system. it's not the same setup as when you just measure the distribution on the detector behind the slits. this is what gives rise to the difference in distributions. it has nothing to do with someone observing and everything to do with someone altering the system.
basically, when people infer from this that just observing is altering things, they're partially incorrect. it's the physical intrusion of a measuring device that alters things and not the act of observing. you can observe something in nature without having that observation alter it as the photons that are entering your eyes would be shining down from the sun whether or not you are there, the only issue comes when you try to observe things on the atomic/subatomic scale, as that requires machinery in which we add to the system. - MisterGnome, on 06/13/2009, -5/+18Reminds me of this: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- OneOfNone, on 05/03/2009, -2/+14Weak anthropic principle is intellectually cleaner. If we observe this Universe because it can sustain life (while many others can't), and not the other way around as Lanza says, you don't have to invent extra entities.
Yes, this theory is intriguing but I can't help noticing that "because of quantum" starts to replace "because of God" as universal rubber glue for philosophical constructs. - redrabbit, on 05/03/2009, -5/+15"I think, therefore I am."
- cyphin6, on 05/03/2009, -1/+11Sorry dude wrong site your looking for the ilovejesus.com forum
- average650, on 05/03/2009, -1/+9It's amazing how much we don't know about our universe. It seems to me that this idea will prove to be nonsense, but just that it's even thought of shows how much we still don't know. It's an amazing how it's full of mystery and wonder.
It's cool man. - maffmatics, on 05/03/2009, -1/+9No... Don't ignore it.
Consider it. Don't let it leave your mind, one day someone might make a connection when studying something else. Any idea, when properly examined, can provide great insight.
You're offering a terrible approach. - YEEK, on 05/03/2009, -2/+10It's true... I made the Universe.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+8According to the bible, insects have four legs, bats are birds and people who believe in Christ can drink deadly poison and not be killed. It's not exactly a coherent document.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -1/+8There are two possibilities:
1. The Me-centric universe: Because the universe, from a subjective perspective, has only one reality once observations have collapsed the waves, there can only be one consciousness that perceives it. So in that sense, this universe only exists because you (my dear reader who is perceiving my words, bringing them into reality), are there to observe it. That doesn't necessarily mean you are the only perceptive being, but each observer would ultimately create his own reality, and any coinciding realities would merely be coincidental.
2. The collective consciousness: You may not be alone in your observations. There is an observer who exists within your consciousness, but this observer may also exist equally in my consciousness, or your uncles, or that dog. This observer is god, who creates one single reality through many different consciousnesses, or perhaps entirely outside of them (though science would indicate the former). This begs the question though, if this same observer exists in both you and I, are we really different beings, or simply two hands of a greater one? - christoast, on 05/03/2009, -2/+9Neil Tyson on "Stupid Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg - ShyGuy91284, on 05/03/2009, -1/+7In many ways, the greatest way we can measure the wisdom of humanity at any one point in time is our willingness to admit that however certain we are about the nature of reality, we are most likely wrong.
- nepeter, on 05/03/2009, -2/+8Makes me think of this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#In_Eastern_my ... .
"Spectrum of Consciousness" by Ken Wilber is all about the observer/observed dualism, which he calls the primary dualism. It's an excellent intro to transpersonal psychology and the combination of Eastern and Western thought. Not trying to worship the guy or anything, but it's a great book and I highly recommend it. If you're interested in biocentrism, it would make for an excellent read. - kevincredible, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5Agreed. I wish our species could put all our ***** aside and band together in the name of science. Of course, I'm sure it's not as simple as that. I still can't help but think we have a global case of cabin fever.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -4/+9Ever try LSD/psychedelics? Change your how perception on how our senses create our reality.
- lostlyrics, on 05/03/2009, -1/+6reality is merely an illusion
albeit a very persistant one.
(einstein) - myFriendDerrik, on 05/03/2009, -1/+5Almost everything is nothing, and if it IS something, it's only probably there.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -3/+7It is funny to me that we assume it is our own consciousnesses that are collapsing the wave functions and creating the world as we see it. Yes, there must be an observer it would seem, and that observer appears to reside within the human consciousness, but why?
The human consciousness, technically, is nothing more than a complex biological computer, designed to interpret and react to --not create-- the world. It doesn't seem logical that this should be able to collapse a wave, when it's own action depends on it's observation of that event. Essentially, it doesn't make sense that anything that depends on the collapse of that wave should be able to collapse the wave itself. It necessitates that there be something separate from the system, something external that is not directly dependent on that wave to truly observe it. It is in this vein that I find god, or at least, a soul which observes, because there is something in consciousness that apparently supersedes the physical universe and actually creates reality. What it is exactly is impossible to know, but if anything in the universe exists in any perceptible sense, that soul must exist. - Dougman82, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4"I thought motion was described as a vector? If you freeze a single frame, you still have direction/position, and can integrate to find acceleration->velocity->displacement. Also, using an arrow in motion (described by classical mechanics as you just saw) as an analogy for subatomic events seems a bit dubious."
Don't think of the arrow's flight as having a beginning (shooting the arrow) and an end (hitting a target). Rather, consider that you just happened across an arrow flying through the air and, without knowing when it began its flight, or how far it had come, you just snapped a picture. That picture shows the arrow's absolute position at that moment in time. However, having isolated the position like that, you have lost all information about velocity and direction. Looking at the picture alone, it might be going backwards for all you know.
As for using a classical mechanics situation as an analogy to quantum mechanics, the idea is to show that quantum mechanics does not simply apply to subatomic particles. One of the points of the article was to point out that quantum mechanics perhaps has a much larger role in how we observe the universe, even on the macroscopic level. - JigoroKano, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4Quantum events are measurement dependent but measurements don't require consciousness. Nobody in the Quantum Mechanics community espouses these kinds of views any more. This line of thinking died with Wigner. The article is crap.
- kcp12304, on 05/03/2009, -1/+5Neil Tyson is the man!
- cXbX, on 05/03/2009, -1/+5Or not even hallucinogens, really. I started smoked pot for a while and I'm pretty sure I came to the same theory. It's just that I thought it was a conclusion. And I said "dude" a lot.
- aamir2, on 05/03/2009, -0/+4While the experiment is good, the conclusion drawn is dubious at best. The conclusion seems to be based on considering partial measurements to not be measurements!! That is like saying, measuring partial distances are not a measurement of distance! On what basis is it presumed that partial measurements will not collapse the wave function?
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3If you direct this jealousy in a competitive way it can work in your favor.
- oriondr, on 05/03/2009, -1/+4Which is exactly WHY this article is retarded - it's all semantics. Arguments based around semantics are retarded.
- FlyinRyan89, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3...or at least understand the morals of a Christian...
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -2/+5"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Go out and drink some poison, then get back to me on bible accuracy. - killdashnine, on 05/03/2009, -6/+9Dugg for "two slit experiment"; reminds me of college.
- gnail, on 05/03/2009, -3/+6If a tree falls down in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?
- crimsoncircle, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Actually he didn't, it was an English Quaker called Sir Arthur Eddington and a companion that traveled to take the photo and who ultimately proved Einstein correct in his lifetime.
- aamir2, on 05/03/2009, -2/+5I am reading Lanza's Biocentrism now. Although I agree with the basic premise of the book, but I am so far not too sure about the presentation of the idea and about the seeming insinuation that the idea being proposed is original. The ideas presented is definitely not new although I will say to my knowledge the term "Biocentrism" may be the original contribution of Lanza or Berman.
I like Lanza and Berman, usually find myself shocked by the absolute denial the general scientific community exhibits about the fundamental dichotomy in science for last nearly 100 years since quantum mechanics started challenging the traditional (newtonian physics) notion of clockwork universe and reality. The scientific community (especially physicists starting with Einstein: "God does not play dice") are just flailing about wildly in attempts to hang to the clockwork mechanical reality. This has translated into stagnation of physics with dead-end attempts like, unified field theory, General Theory of Everything, Many-worlds theory, string theory, hidden-variables, etc. All of these and more have either withered away, been proven false or getting nowhere due fundamental axiomatic flaws.
The questions people need to asking are. What is real? What makes it real? Is it possible for humans to know reality independently of our observations, independent of us? Is the universe the same as we perceive it to be. Is it logically sound to even expect the perceptions of humans to be able define our universe accurately? Wouldn't it be suspicious if humans were to be able to describe the universe accurately? Wouldn't you suspect we were making it all up? How would we know that our brains aren't telling us only what we were able to consume? We are part of this system called the universe can we ever accurately describe this system while being a part of the system? Godel's incompleteness theorem may provide a guideline for this last one:
"For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true1 but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."
Another question, if we were in a matrix (yes from the movie) how would we know it was not real? From our experiences, interactions, experiments? Wouldn't all these just tell us everything was hunky-dory? Can we *prove* that we are not living in a simulation like matrix?
These are some of the fundamental questions we should be focusing on. We should also ignore the ignoramuses like Richards Dawkins who go around with their bones and fossils trying to teach us "science." - lostlyrics, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Heisenberg went for a drive and got stopped by a traffic cop.
The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replied, "No, but I know where I am." - noumuon, on 05/03/2009, -2/+5this question doesn't have a correct answer. both yes and no suffice. it's all just an argument of semantics: how does one define sound, the physical waves or the perception of the waves. both can be argued equally as valid.
- sutterm, on 05/03/2009, -1/+4Not trying to sound like a prick, DiscoLando, but how was the theory teleological?
This isn't rhetorical; I'd legitimately be interested if you could point it out... I may have missed something. - moarmoarmoar, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3That has to be one of the most mind-blowing things I've read in quite some time. I love quantum physics.
- Myztry, on 05/03/2009, -1/+4Two slits doesn't work too well. One slit always gets jealous of the other slit and a catfight ensues.
- FKnight, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3@moarmoarmoar
I'm certain Azerael has heard of the word "proved" .... I'm certain Azerael has also been educated on the concept of "verb tense" which mjoe, apparently, was not. - noumuon, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3nobody really comprehends the fundamental nature of matter. it is most assuredly neither wave nor particle (in the sense of a particle of dust for example). it simply behaves like a wave in some manners and behaves like a particle in other manners. waves don't have a point like existence; they spread and propagate, but a single electron, for instance, does not itself propagate, it stays a point particle. particles, however, don't interfere with themselves. if you take a grain of sand and shoot it at two slits, it won't behave as if it went through both slits as a wave would. matter behaves in the fashion of both, but we don't have any type of real world thing to form a relationship and we're stuck describing it as a superposition of particles described by a wave function that collapses. this mathematically makes sense, but the physical interpretation has to be that matter is neither wave nor particle.
- Laminarcissus, on 05/03/2009, -0/+3Sounds like somebody's been smoking some laffy-leaf.
- MacEnvy, on 05/03/2009, -1/+3You're entirely incorrect. There's nothing "magical" about stem cells that makes them unable to be synthesized or observed, it's just biochemistry in action, and completely observable and eventually mimicable. I have no doubt that we will eventually be able to create cells that can modify themselves to mimic any given type of cells around them (i.e. stem cells).
- jumpenjack, on 05/04/2009, -0/+2i saw that documentary, it really was a piece of crap
and this article actually reminded me of that when it was mentioning quantum mechanic examples.interesting idea,but yeah not something i'm too keen to believe in. - freedomischaos, on 05/03/2009, -0/+2Right, and the universe can't be eternal. Learn how to properly use Occam's Razor to win.
- inactive, on 05/03/2009, -1/+3What we learn is that instead of being teeny tiny balls or spheres, sub-atomic particles are a wave-form superposition of states, like a big blur of possible locations, that does not collapse into a coherent single object traveling along one vector *until* it is observed/measured.
Which quantum physicists have been trying to understand for nearly a century. There are many interpretations of this phenomenon. All that we can say for certain is that we cannot be certain. LOL - lostlyrics, on 05/03/2009, -1/+38) but most definitely, even when talking
deep in the back woods, and no woman
is in range - still you will be very very wrong,
and she very very right. get over it. move on.
it starts to become interesting when schroedinger's cat
falls inside the box, with a toast tied jelly-up on her back.
which raises the question of course, "is the horse dead ?" -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
