/sci/ - Science & Math

I think that this video briefly touches upon this while explaining the 4th or 5th dimension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles is ultimately coused by intelligent observation.

The idea a wave pattern is collapces by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent obser.

The idea a wave pattern is collapses by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

The idea a wave pattern is collapses by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358062
>Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

no, it's not god dammit you fucking morons stop posting that shit

No such thing was EVER proven nor any significant evidence suggest that.

>>2358045
I would say this guy has it right, but I'm having trouble understanding his exact point.

Anyway, "observation" doesn't mean a self-aware entity seeing it. It means that the particle interacts with the universe. Think of it like this: the photons exist in a zone of probability. In this zone, they "occupy" each state they possibly could. But when the photons interact with something else, the way they interact is bound by physical laws. Laws whose outcomes are dependent on their input. So if the photon interacts with something, the way the interaction plays out necessitates that the photon have had certain qualities. By requiring the photon to have had those qualities, this interaction makes all states where the photon didn't have those qualities impossible. So the possible states don't include those anymore.

I may be wrong; I'm a math major with an interest in physics. But yeah, that's how I understand it.

>>2358062


thiso

>>2358077
lol trolled

9/11 was an twin slit job

>>2358062
>>2358062
>intelligent observer.


YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. An "observer: in physics doesn't have to be intellegent. It just have to be anything that collapses a wavefucntion.

A ROCK can be an observer

>>2358356
How the condensation of physical possibilities into a single occurrence is supposed to be carried out by anyone other than an intelligent observer? Enlighten me..

>>2358023
>the double slit experiment
>the double slit
>double slit
>slits

I am sick and tired of all the hippy dippy trippy new age crystal gazing bullshit about how quantum mechanics and bells inequality imply that we create the universe by looking at it and HERP DERP NON MATERIALISM THE SECRET

>mwf

Proves that God doesn't exist if you look for him scientifically.

No, the observer has its own gravity and causes interference.
Observer was also absorbing.

>>2358023

That's a computer simulation.
You can't see atoms. The issue is only theoretical, it's because their sums are fucked up.

As its a simulation, I suggest the designer take into consideration that two reader points in a complex structure often rely upon the resources of the actual simulation. The interference would likely decrease the number of iterations between each interval than when there was only one viewpoint. Remember, binary is not a good number base in an analogue universe of great complexity. We can only study the effects, not the causes. Sometimes the causes are invisible and high dimensional. Which is something that CAN become an issue in simulation, since the computer treats higher dimensions as arrays of the same laws; real spacetime probably does not.

>>2358410

Wavefucntion collapse happens all the fucking time without us.

Operator b (from system "b") acts on system "a". The wave fucntion of "system a" is collapsed by operator b. The operator b does not need to be associated with human observation.

Example: two photons with prob wavefucntions collide. The act of collsion (each photon interacts with the other) collapses the wavefucntions of the photons.

Sure is basic undergrad quantum in here. You should read a book friend.

>>2358410

>implying that ice melting in warm water requires a intelligent observer (and by this you're implying Consciousness, ya hippy faggot)

>implying that an object (like a flat rock) with two distinct sides land on one side or the other if it falls off a cliff after an earthquake requires a intelligent observer

>implying that the laws of kinematics requires an intelligent observer

>implying that the existence of the universe requires an intelligent observer

PROTIP, NEWSFLASH, SPOLIER, ETC: THE UNIVERSE, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, GEOMETRIC AXIOMS (ALBEIT WITHOUT HUMAN DEFINITIONS), AND THE ERGODIC BEHAVIOR OF MULTI PARTICLE SYSTEMS WERE ALL HERE BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED. DEAL WITH IT

GO THE FUCK BACK TO /x/

>>>/x/ is that way

>>2358481
>>2358474

1/2

I am not here to agree a consensus on what coases the wave form of particles to collapse. And don`t claim to know all about the sceince of quantum mechanics.
I`m just repeating what prominent sceintists already concluded.
So if you self-declared QM specialists think it`s a rediculous idea, faggory, new age bullshit, popsceince, impossible, should kill myself etc... just contact these prominent researchers in stead of ruining this thread.

Anyway pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
Because that`s where modern QM is based on.

[citations]
>According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.
>Wigner designed a though experiment to illustrate that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process.
>it is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat experiment
[/citations]

See the copenhagen interpretation suggests the collapse of particle in it`s wave form is not ultimately caused by interaction with surrounded particle`s,
But ultimately collapses because of observation by a living being (interaction with a particle that has been/is going to be observed by a living being).

>>2358496

2/2
Stop being a pathatic fuck and accept the fact that some thing seem miraculous.

Why are sceintists so sure about this interpretation?
Because of this experiment sucessfully performed in 2006... i remember reading about it in new sceintist.

>they claim that this experiment definitively rules out all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, except the Copenhagen and the Bohm interpretation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

Not claiming it a soul exactly as discribed in the bible though.

Sadly most people here think they are too smart to "believe" in something like this. Even with hard evidence.

See on Wiki how it is a disputed subject and people are trying to make the measurement effect more likely by saying most sceintists belief that explanation.
>From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.[citation needed] A significant minority[who?] still find the equations point to an observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


But they won`t speak this out loud oftenly and defently won`t call it a soul.
Although when they mean the same when referring to an immaterial element of the human observer.
They prefere to ignore this subject because they want to be taken seriously be as much people as possible and don`t want thier findings to be abused by new-age scam and people who`ll not understand it and blow things up.

>>2358473


>in an analogue universe of great complexity
No, because, energy quanta. DERP. Thats the whole point, the fundamental insight of 20th century physics.

>Sometimes the causes are invisible and high dimensional.
Ha ha he believes in hidden variable theories (laughing girls.jpg) such as Super-string Theory (maximum trolling.jpg)

>since the computer treats higher dimensions as arrays of the same laws; real spacetime probably does not.
Cool violation of the equivalence principle, bro.

ITT: faggots don't know what the fuck they're talking about and read too much Deepak Chopra

>>2358481
>yfw observing anything in the universe intelligently collapses all the wave functions in history that affect the observe thing into one set of outcomes

>>2358500
>>2358496

Tautoulogic forgot his tripcode

>>2358514

exactly how i though about it.
Schrödinger's cat though experiment is just a though experiment so we can visualize how different interpretations of QM work.

As long as there`s no interaction with a particle that never did interact with an intellegent observer, the cat would technically still be in a closed system.

Although a lot of interactions take place, The cat would still be in superposition as long as it`s not obseved (by an intelligen being) AND doesn`t interact with a particle that deterministicly traces back to an intelligent observer.

Note the last requirement is impossible to accomplish in practice, but not in theorie. That`s where a lot of people here go wrong.

>>2358496
>>2358500

>Use wiki sources
>Doesn't understand shit
>Misinterprets everything

LMAO. NICE TROLLING BRO.
You should come up with somthign new, all your shit it your own old copypasta.

>the copenhagen interpretation suggests... the particle... collapses because of observation by a living being (interaction with a particle that has been/is going to be observed by a living being).

Patently wrong, misinformation even. Go back to >>>/x/

>Stop being a pathatic fuck and accept the fact that some thing seem miraculous.

lol, >>>/x/

>>2358530
>Although a lot of interactions take place, The cat would still be in superposition as long as it`s not obseved (by an intelligen being) AND doesn`t interact with a particle that deterministicly traces back to an intelligent observer.

Doesn't understand the thought experiment. Gets it completely wrong.

>>2358530
You are number #1 funny guy

More jokes please

>>2358514

my body and any consciousness that comes equipped with it will of course collapse the wave function, BECASUE MY BODY IS A THERMODYNAMICLY INTERACTIVE PHYSICAL OBJECT.

A ROCK, FALLING OFF A CLIFF, ON THE PLANET MARS, CAN ALSO FUCK UP THE WAVEFUNCTION OF A PHOTON STREAM

>ya'll herpin in a derp thread

>yes I mad

>lrn2science

>>2358567
and you know this because you observed the effects of the collapse. Whether you collapsed it or the rock is unclear.

>>2358567

no

>>2358577
>>2358578
NOPE

Ya'll need to read a book

>>2358598
Suggesting both lack of education AND trolling?

double slut>= double slit

TROLL THREAD CREATED by Tautoulogic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL2bqkihX4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL2bqkihX4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL2bqkihX4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL2bqkihX4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL2bqkihX4E

>>2358578

NO U. The postulates of quantum mechanics do not imply that intelligent conscious observers create their own reality just by looking at it. It does not imply a soul and it does not imply that intelligent observers (i.e. humans and monkeys, etc.) are any more privileged that non-intelligent observers (i.e. the preexisting states of the system such as rocks on cliffs) when it comes to "collapsing wave-functions". Any attempt to justify "consciousness causes collapse" woo woo will ultimately reduce the argument awkwardly down to either the anthropic principle (which is a null hypothesis when it comes to the laws of physics) or pantheism (which unfalsifiable, unverifiable and is really just atheism for hipsters)

please Please PLEASE stop using a poor understanding of the Quantum interpretation problem as a justification for your metaphysical solipsism.

/thread

>>2358598

I`ll rather rely on what prominent sceintists say, they are continuously studying this subject.

Better listen to what they say then having the arrogance to think i can understand everything on my won when i`ve read one or tho books on the subject.

>>2358617
Troll are stupid as fuck. Can't logic for shit.

>>2358654
IC your problem

You believe in scientist's opinions, not the validity of there scientific work. By your logic QM is fucking wrong anyway since Einstein said so.

GTFO!

>>2358034
This is basically a new timecube crank. It's all pretty standard until he talks about the 5th dimension being all our different possible futures, which is completely off the deep end.

>>2358654
>rather rely on what prominent sceintists say

Newton says your full of shit. There is no such thing as Qunatum Mechanics.

SHITTY LOGIC IS SHITTY

>>2358630
If the two sluts bot have slits then the experiments are equivalent variations of one another.

pic related, I fixed it for you

After the day I read about logical fallacies, 4chan never looked the same again.

I'm guessing Dr Quantum never thought that extrapolar activity works also on a quatum level?
We live in an analogue universe; mathematics is discreet type; and computers are most definitely digital. Between each point there are an infinite amount of steps (or clicks), there are an infinity of angles.

Time is indeed linear; but space is not.
For to an observe from an extrapolar angle would mean... Well, impossibility (if time is linear; then how can you have two viewpoints in the same point of a linear dimension?).

Also, electrons constantly emit energy waves as they decay. All these factors were not summed up.

So, electrons release the waves that cause them to be observed.
Now, an observer would be monitoring these waves.

(cont)
But the waves that electrons emit are particles so tiny that they're not even significant mass to the observer; there's no such thing as 'half a particle', and yet the decay from electrons are split from a particle as pieces, surely these are just smaller particles? No, they're not, these smaller particles disappear at random and once they fall from an electron they are literally no longer apart of spacetime. Yet one of the observers remember and see these small bits of particles in their last stages before becoming nothingness.

There's only one explanation.
Since closer observer was in range of the waves to see the decay; it knew that decay existed; to the distant observer that decay never did exist.

So what's the conclusion?
Isn't it obvious? The two observers were in two different points of spacetime.

This can only mean one thing - space and time are dimensions seperate to each other.
Time is linear, but space is not; so time may have a set steps in succession, but space is based on an infinite number of cartesian-style points in not three axial directions; but infinite angles.

This, to me, indicates that time is a lower dimension and not a higher one.
Space is an array of linear time points.

>>2358356
Oh, so it's a circular definition. How convenient. By your circular definition it could very well have to be sentient.

(cont)
If you walk across the road, you're crossing through an infinite amount of time points, and yet you are just matter.
And in each of these time points, there are wells of interference where space has gathered up differently across time and may not even be balanced.

Back to the double slit experiment, waves are matter merely going in all directions.
Electrons are bit different as I have stated; they do not release true matter, they release matter that decays into either nothingness, none-existence or another time completely.

On the quantum level, the universe is very much aggressive, matter jumps to another time merely be passing through my space, which ever much more makes my earlier point seemingly more realistic. Instead of considering space and time as planar thing, consider space a cubic array of time (cubic or infinite angles on all axes).

This could quite easily mean that between you and another object could be interferences on a quantum level, whereby you being more distant makes that object appear different to a closer observer (so reality changes over distance x time).

The closer you are to a certain object, the more the time around it appear relative. So spacetime appearing yet again, somewhat cubic, although more like I've stressed, is in fact very much different than from a more distant viewpoint.

> this thread

(cont)
The further away you are from an object, the more distorted it becomes as the decay from the particles in the quantum events are less observable. That decay is literally lost from the reality of the observer. It does not mean time itself has changed, but to every observer further away, less information has reached and thus reality itself appear different.

When the two realities bridge, they indeed do collapse. Since the more data, the more the observer sees and the difference is comparative.

It's almost like space and time thinks.
But it does not; well it kind of does; your brain is merely a complex electric organ full of interchanging realities. As reality changes your memory may indeed change.

This is why, although we have not / may not ever found how to time travel as a whole being, if we were; to kill our own grandfather by going back in time, would not effect us unless we were in the exact well of time. And since there's an infinite number of clicks, the appropriate amount in complexity between the two realities would depend on the effects.

>>2358686
agreed

There wavefucntions can be collapsed by insertion of any object into there pussy. No need for it to be a conscious object! The act of insertion can be done by themselves, or even a machine (not conscious).

(final cont)
But I should think commercial time travel would be less of a thing of travelling through time and more of the utilisation of rewinding particles travelling forwards in time in a momentum (i.e. like rewinding a tape; but not having to rewind space time (well when you rewind a DVD, do you rewind time; no I thought not, and I should think time travel could be possible with some nuclear cumbersome technology in the future that could literally rewind the whole processes of planets or larger (and that would be cumbersome, but nonetheless, a success that would not effect what has already been, but simply replace into it by experiencing it again))).

So space and time is relatively integrated in such that way, but time is a lower dimension.
Space is a 3D array of time; and time is not an array of 3 dimensional spatial planes as many a previous theory has suggested (this is cumbersome and unrelated to how quanta works on a internanoscopic level).

>>2358474
I respect this because I also have this book. I love Griffith.

>>2358691
>>2358696
>>2358702
>>2358706
>>2358708

/sci/ we has scientist

>>2358023
GLAD YOU ARE FEEDING THE TROLLS SCI

NEVER FUCKING CHAGE
BE FAGGOTS FOREVER

>>2358474
That's arbitrary. You can equally say that the wave function did not collapse there, and instead describe the two-photon system as an evolving probabilistic quantum system that needs to interact with something else in order to collapse. That's the point. The only time you HAVE TO say the system collapsed is sometime before something sentient experiences it one way or another. (Or in the case of many worlds, some say it doesn't even collapse then)

>>2358691
>>2358696
>>2358702
>>2358706
>>2358708

>>2358481
The question is if an observer has to be sentient, not intelligent. The entire universe can easily evolve as a single complex wave function until a sentient observer observes it. The problem is that a sentient thing observes it being only one way, not as a smear of probabilities.

>>2358699
>implying inanimate objects are sentient by affirming the consequent

>>2358696
timecube?

So what happens when a sentient being observes that he is made of wave functions?
I work in a factory, help me out here, explain shit, I want to know.

>>2358679
>implying Newton ever voiced any serious argument against QM

>>2358747
Your definition doesn't suggest that inanimate objects can collapse wave functions.

I guantee 100% that if you listen to this all the way through, you'll cease to exist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm2xckdi5LM

>>2358751
Protip, no one one the planet really explains this shit. Those who imagine they do have never really thought it through. That's why there are about 7 different interpretations of quantum theory; because none of them make much sense.

Like tripfag suggests, it depends on the observer.
For all I know, I'm the only one who actually has a real perception of reality and the rest of you are just biological robots.

Now I feel lonely...

>>2358747
>doesn't know timecube
laughinggirls.pcx

x-x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_bqkKRQxno
:goD, siht naem uoy t'noD

5778532<<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FTslewLzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQU650K0muA

>>2358721
>That's arbitrary

Nope, read a book kid.

FYI:
The orginal two wavefucntions do collapse. Basicially, some possibilities are elimitated. However, you will get a resultant wave function again, which yes, needs to be collpased again. Ad Infinium.

Everything is wavefuctions.....DURRRR. You never actually collapse the "totallity" of a wavefuction system. Your "collapse" only elimates certain eigenvalues for certain operators, but doens't actually give the system determinism. Even after you "observe" a wavefunction system, the wavefucntions are still there (albiet alittle different maybe).

The wavefucntions will always be there. Consious observation (just like not-conscious obeservation), only elimates some possibilites, and collapses certian expresseions of the wavefucntion.

The collapse of a wavefucntion only need some external system for the wavefucntion to interact with, it need to be human.

source: pic related

>>2358825

extra dimensional music?
lol wut

>>2358736
>The question is if an observer has to be sentient, not intelligent.

define the difference between sentient and intelligent in this context. I think the concept you're trying to get at is "Consciousness".

>The problem is that a sentient thing observes it being only one way, not as a smear of probabilities.

LOL WUT? I hate to mix metaphors in such a lulzy way, but I'm pretty sure that when i stare at a pot of boiling water, I'm observing a "smear of probabilities".

Now you could say that by observing the water, I'm causing the wave-functions regarding particle velocity to collapse, leading to a net increase in particle velocity because I'm constantly adding more observation to the system by continuing to stare at it, and thus more collapse, and thus more entropy.

By your theory, a watch-pot boils FASTER than it would otherwise, and in fact, all I have to do to beat the laws of thermodynamics is to get a whole bunch of my friends to help me stare at the water.

The rate at which the water boils increases proportionally to the amount of people watching it boil! AMAZING!

But, also, no. The water will boil regardless of if there is a consciousness observing it or not, at a rate determined by planks law, thermodynamics, and the chemical properties of water.

Now, you could say, that entropy is exactly as I described it above, and it always increases because GOD is constantly looking at the universe, and because GOD is so "big", he causes the universe to do stuff just by looking at it. But this is unfalsifiable speculation. Ergo, this why you fail.

>>2358830

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q54xE4SXG6c

>>2358824

>Consious observation (just like not-conscious obeservation), only elimates some possibilites, and collapses certian expresseions of the wavefucntion.

That`s our disputed point... There is no "not-conscious obeservation."

>>2358824
You need to read more books, kid. He's right. You're wrong. The original two photons can be modeled with a single wave function for the system, rather than two wave functions that collapse.

>>2358834
Sentient is something that can experience sensory input. Consciousness of some sort is implied. Sentience is important because we assume that anything sentient experiences what he senses in one and only one way.

Got to agree with tripfag.
Seems highly feasible.

>>2358721
>That's arbitrary

Nope, read a book kid.

FYI:
The orginal two wavefucntions do collapse. Basicially, some possibilities are elimitated. However, you will get a resultant wave function again, which yes, needs to be collpased again. Ad Infinium.

Everything is wavefuctions.....DURRRR. You never actually collapse the "totallity" of a wavefuction system. Your "collapse" only elimates certain eigenvalues for certain operators, but doens't actually give the system determinism. Even after you "observe" a wavefunction system, the wavefucntions are still there (albiet alittle different maybe).

The wavefucntions will always be there. Consious observation (just like not-conscious obeservation), only elimates some possibilites, and collapses certian expresseions of the wavefucntion.

The collapse of a wavefucntion only need some external system for the wavefucntion to interact with, it need not be human.

source: pic related

>>2358859

A watchpot does not boil faster just by looking at it. I can not set paper on fire with my mind, and so on and so on.

At this point, I know you're trolling because I'm not even sure what your thesis is here. Are all you "consciousness causes collapse" mother fuckers getting at something bigger? Shit is wack up in here

>>2358834
I really don't know what you're on about. When you look at something, you only see a single configuration of the configuration. You don't see a smear of probabilities of its possible probabilities. It becomes a single configuration at some point at or before the point where you observe it.

As for observation slowing or speeding processes, it slows them, or stops them. It doesn't speed them. See quantum zeno effect.

>>2358871
see
>>2358853
kid. You have a freshman's understanding of QM.

>>2358873
>A watchpot does not boil faster just by looking at it. I can not set paper on fire with my mind,
I don't know where you're even getting this shit. Are you high?

>>2358824

>Consious observation (just like not-conscious obeservation), only elimates some possibilites, and collapses certian expresseions of the wavefucntion.

That`s our disputed point... There is no "not-conscious obeservation."

For as long as there`s interaction with particle`s that never did and never are going to interact with an intellegent observer, these "clean" particles would just become part of the closed system. And not change any wave form.

note that only a sentient observer can be the cause of such an "external system".

>>2358871

>Consious observation (just like not-conscious obeservation), only elimates some possibilites, and collapses certian expresseions of the wavefucntion.

That`s our disputed point... There is no "not-conscious obeservation."

For as long as there`s interaction with particle`s that never did and never are going to interact with an intellegent observer, these "clean" particles would just become part of the closed system. And not change any wave form.

note that only a sentient observer can be the cause of such an "external system".

And no, im not that arrogant to read a book an think im a qm specialist/philosopher i`ll rather rely on what experts like Eugene Wigner say about it.

>>2358853
>Fails to grasp the fucking point

If you combine the two photon wave functions, it is not the same as saying they interacted (collapsed there seperate wave fucntion and made a new one).

A system of two photons that interacted previously, is different then a system of just two photons. Each system provides me different results on observation. This is realy basic Intro Quantum Mechanics.

Sorry, but I don't have anymore time to waste explaining shit to you. I would suggest the first two chapers of this book if you really want to learn. Good Luck.

>>2358895
>There is no "not-conscious obeservation."

>implying the universe isn't there when I'm not looking at it
>implying that if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound
>implying solipsism

An infant thinks that your face disappears from reality when you hide if from him during a game of peek-a-boo.

Ergo you have the mind of an infant. Or rather, you have an infantile understanding of QM

>>2358879
Kirk, I swear to god, if that's you... you really need to stop saying kid.

>>2358933

According to your mind, only two parts of the unverse exist:
*What you've perceived and remembered.
*What you're currently perceiving.

So depending on the mediating subject, the universe may or may not exist.
For as long as we think it does, we are none the wiser.

>>2358895

>If the universe could possibly exist, but there is no sentient consciousness around to observe it existing, then it can't exist

Cool story bro. By this logic, the non-existence of a sentient consciousness would collapse the wavefunction governing the <universe exists|universe doesn't exist> superposition into the | doesn't exist> side.

Thus, a wave-function collapsed, BECAUSE of the non-existence of a sentient consciousness.

Ergo, wavefunction collapse is independent of and more fundamental than the existence of sentient consciousness.

>>2358933

lol you`re such a fail
i didn`t imply anything you critisized.

>>2358976

An intire universe being in superposition doesn`t mean it is non-existing you assholes.

In fact it would be in all possible states at the same time.

John von Neumann knows everything.
He is god.

Lol @ tripfag using tons of words in English to describe a two line equation.

>>2358976

An entire universe being in superposition doesn`t mean it is non-existing you stupid dipsticks.

In fact it would be in all possible states at the same time.

So it's not just DNA and life that's intelligent, but the very workings of the universe.

WOW

>>2358954

>implying that if I look at the refrigerator, then I turn and look at the sink, that when I turn back to look at the refrigerator again I'm either simply looking at a memory of the refrigerator, or i'm looking at a new present moment that just so happens to miraculously resemble almost exactly the refrigerator that I looked moments ago

>possibly implying that memories are all that exist, and that presetn moments are nothing but recursive rehashes of previous memories

>which would further imply that the human mind's perception of the universe behaves exactly as a dream does, albeit a very well ordered one

>implying that the well-ordered consistency of the dream-memory-rehashes that we call present moments are caused by a subconscious and possibly external process

>implying that we're living in a dream world neo...built by the machines

Morpheus-grin.jpg

I would sage the hell out of this thread if it weren't for the fact that tautological is herping so hard that he's derping by implying that quantum mechanics supports or other wise has ANYTHING at all to say about such a stoner-logic philosophical position

>>2358985
It doesn't matter if that's not what you're trying to say. What I'm telling you is that it IS what you're saying - thats where your chain of logic leads. If your argument is not supporting your point then it's called a contradiction. Therefore, you should modify your argument to support your point instead.

I'm showing you that your argument is flawed.

What the bleed do we know deals highly with quantum mysticism. I wouldn't trust anything they have to tell you.

>quantum mysticism

Welcome to this thread you must be new here

>mfw a quantum mysticism thread is on /sci/ when it should be on /x/
>mfw I'm not really surprised though
>mfw /x/philes flood sci with quantum mysicism and /new/sreaders flood it with religeon vs science
>mfw non-science and pseudo-science related threads are the cancer that is killing /sci/

I think part the issue is that we look upon matter as blocks. To us it is, but matter is not made of blocks, it's made of fluctuations of the very fabric of spacetime. Flux so complex that there are literally extra dimensions. Each dimension cancels the other out when crossing over the other in order to balance each other's rules.

May be something spiritual...
The perceiver is part of a spiritual dimension, or perhaps even several dimensions.

I feel the universe is infinitely complex and that our very own rules in logic can decypher or govern the workings of these extra dimensions and rules of nature.
I wouldn't call them dimensions, perhaps; since dimensions are an array of other quanta dimensions.

But... What if it's more simple than we think.
Pick up a vase, smash it on the floor. If wave patterns of each were observed, would the vase remain whole? Would the international lottery be less random if I was to observe closely the inner workings of the machine, would the machine be less random; or if I knew if three aces were to appear on a gambling machine.

May be coincidence is governed by simplistic rules of another reality; perhaps the intersection of our own minds could enable paranormal activity such as psychic ability; something we already have but often ignore.

Is that the next step in our evolution? Don't animals already have that? What's real; for in our reality right now, everything seems real and correct; but may be we are living in a paradox whereby reality only appear right in intersection with other realities. Oh well, we're happy are we not; if I wake up the next day green with purple spots and didn't know what I was like before, would I not be happy? For happiness is merely a mental concept; so is knowledge.

Perhaps something more paranormal incurs our very own physical rules.
I simply conclude that there's phantomics...
Rules beyond our own physical reality that sometimes intersect with our very own. For all realities exist at once (even time), and yet they. Rules not we cannot even describe, sense or possibly understand. Something not even LSD or our minds could reflect and simulate.

Nonetheless, I think I am digging too deep in something that's amazing enough to be enjoyed and not wasted in time by dwelling on it.

>>2359082

>What the bleed do we know
>quantum mysticism

That`s a direct insult to the word mysticism

mysticism is a set of reasonable ideas and should not be confused with retarded new-age bullshit like"quantum buddism" and "the five karma layers of quantum consciousness " or simelar shit.

>>2359123
>>2359126

This guy is a scientist.
>perhaps
>may be

OP here.
Thanks for the explanations but i still hardly get this at all. Got a book called "Quantum Enigma". Imma read it instead of this evolving flame-war.

>>2359073
>If your argument is not supporting your point then it's called a contradiction.
Actually it's called a non sequitur.

>>2359128
>mysticism is a set of reasonable ideas

Shit troll is still shit

>>2359126
>phantomics

What like... The parody of physics?

>>2359123
>>2359126
Maybe you should stick some cocks and balls in your mouth and study physics, dickweed.

>>2358951
Suck a cock, kid.

>>2359143

No.
The corruption of physics.

...By alternative realities overlaying our very own.

>>2359144

I must say you very quickly read my comments, did you not?
Otherwise, you did not read them at all.

>>2359144

Shut the fuck up, and suck my dick.

>>2358932
You can model everything that a system of two photons can do in a single wave function. That single wave function does not "collapse" because of anything internal to the wave function (interaction of the two photons). Just because you've read your first book on QM, doesn't mean that what you've learned establishes the sole model that works in QM.

>>2359159
>>2359165

One is real, and not sure who...

>>2358951
>calls other people kid
>gets butthurt when other people call him kid
>youngfag insecure about his age detected

>>2358062
>Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.
Has been suggested but is just speculation.

>>2358079
>Anyway, "observation" doesn't mean a self-aware entity seeing it. It means that the particle interacts with the universe.
For practical purposes, "it has to interact irreversibly with its environment" is one of many good-enough criteria where if we assume it causes collapse, we get the right answer. The irreversible part, which you left out, is needed because we know that reversing a measurement restores interference.

>>2358356
>A ROCK can be an observer
True. Interactions with a system as large and complex as a rock are generally good enough to assume collapse happens without getting the wrong answer.

>>2358441
>HERP DERP NON MATERIALISM THE SECRET
Anyone who believes in "The Secret" is too far gone to be helped by a proper understanding of quantum mechanics.

>>2358474
>Wavefucntion collapse happens all the fucking time without us.
This too is speculation. We don't know under what conditions collapse happens. We don't even know if collapse happens.

>>2358496
>Anyway pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
The Copenhagen is an *instrumentalist* interpretation. It does not tell us what is really going on. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction represents the *knowledge* of the observer, so saying that observation collapses the wavefunction just means that an observation changes the knowledge of the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't make any statements about whether anything collapses in the real world, just in the observer's mental model.

This is the reality:
I am real; you are not.

>>2359126
No animals are not physic, go finish your education, you're a bit too early to start thinking about making a living of your ideas

>>2359180
*Psychic

>>2358500
>>2358500
You seem to have a fairly poor understanding of QM

pic related: your apparently sole source of information

>>2359136

i`ve heard about that book it is honored by many people with all different interpretations on the subject so i guess it`s a neutral, impartial book. that leaves room for uncertaintys.

>>2359180

Actually, some animals are psychic.
It's in the charter. That wins for eel, chic.

They run away before car bombs.
Now tell me they know human language.

>>2358356
>A ROCK can be an observer
Maybe. The point being missed by the butthurt here is this. We can formulate QM such that the "observer" and the wavefunction collapse happens at any interaction that happens before something sentient sees it. OR we can say it NEVER collapses, even after something sentient sees it (this is many worlds or many minds).

Sentient observers matter because we somehow have to contend with the fact that sentient observers observe things in just one of their possible state configurations instead of in a continuum of infinite configurations. We have to conclude that their are either infinite minds, each observing one of the infinite configurations, or that SOMEWHERE before the mind level, decoherence happens, and the system actually collapses into a single configuration. We CAN say that a rock can collapse it. We can place decoherence anywhere as long as it is at or before a mind. If we're not going to worry about minds, then we would not acknowledge observers or wave function collapse at all.

>>2359180

I was indeed preying on the poorly knowledged.
For I don't believe many would grapple a scientific example; especially knowing that everyone but me here actually has a ScD in Quantum Mechanics.

>>2359234
>>2359234
>>2359234
>>2359234

Sherlock?

>>2359180

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/world-cup-2010/7879681/Paul-the-psychic-octop
us-and-friends.html

>>2359215

shit just got real

>>2358500
>they claim that this experiment definitively rules out all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, except the Copenhagen and the Bohm interpretation.
I don't see that in the paper, and anyone who makes claims like this
(a) doesn't understand how many different interpretations of QM there are
and
(b) doesn't understand that most of them are designed to yield exactly the same experimental results

>>2358577
This anon is correct.

>>2358777
This about sums it up. Well, actually, it's not always that they don't make sense in the logical sense. Some of them just offend people's philosophical prejudices and/or theoretical taste.

>>2358871
If you're the same person as
>>2358474
>Operator b (from system "b") acts on system "a". The wave fucntion of "system a" is collapsed by operator b.
You have some serious misconceptions about what operators are in quantum mechanics. And no, it's not any different in quantum field theory. And nothing you said has anything to do with fields, so I question whether you actually know what QFT is.

>>2358932
Well, at least you posted a relevant textbook this time.

>>2358932
Is this textbook worth reading?

Fuck, our teacher played that in class.

>>2359400
Yes, Sakurai is a good textbook. OTOH it's mainly used in graduate-level courses.

According to God the answer is:
vm (v means down)

>>2359429

It for true.
I haz not dubz.

>>2359251
you actually think a newspaper is a viable source of information
>A belief in animals' ability to foresee events has its routes in the fact that some creatures can sense changes undetectable to humans.Hence canaries were taken down mine shafts until well into the 20th century to detect build-ups of toxic gases that could precede a disaster.

see that there is bullshit, the canaries have a more efficient faster respiration system so they die from gases faster.

animals are different from humans, so many things that you would see as supernatural are just their senses coming into play

>>2358985
>mfw you don't realise what you imply

Puddi says McDs.

>>2359456

Your attitude is offensive.

>>2358500
You were burned by pop science. Wake up from your fantasy world.

>>2359487
His attitude is what? Who gives a fuck what you find offensive. That's right, only you do.

>>2359475
Moot? In /sci/? It's less likely than you think.

>>2359615
Switch to Yotsuba B

>>2358871
goodpost but..
>wavefucntions
>wavefunctions

>>2359625
I find the red tones of Yotsuba more restful.

There is no explanation.
Go to /x/

</thr

>>2359215
>the wavefunction collapse happens at any interaction that happens before something sentient sees it

It doesn't have to be seen by something sentient to collapse. You can have an instrument observe the results of a double slit electron beam experiment and never actually display or record the results, and the wave function will still collapse.

Personally, I don't believe in any sort of wave-function "collapse." Then again, I think the time-independent Schrödinger Equation is more fundamental than the time-dependent equation. And that parallel universes are just like walking down the street.

>>2360243
The point is we can only observe any supposed collapse of the wave function from our sentient point of view. In many minds, it never did collapse; our minds are just part of the continuing wave function. In other interpretations, it just had to collapse somewhere before it got to our mind. Not necessarily where we thought it did.

ITT: Victims of resourceful spelling education and people who speak English as a secound language.
inb4 go back to /lit/

bump from page 15

>>2358473