/sci/ - Science & Math

ITT people smoke weed, listen to tool and then pretend they understand the universe

>>3651513
Ha! I only do two of those things.

Quantum mechanics has the theory of a wave-particle duality. This states that in some situations it's waves exhibit the behavior of particles and vise versa. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that by merely observing the world around us we cause unpredictable changes in it. In our consciousness waves take on the forms of particles which accounts for the separations that we experience between all matter.

>>3651520
had to do it, sorry
tool aren't too bad tbh and I smoke too

:( didn't mean it

>>3651486
proof?
>>3651523
proof?

>>3651535
No way dude. I meant that tool sucks. I totally pretend like I understand the universe all the time.

“A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.”
—Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Flight to Arras

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while
knowledge defines all we currently know and understand,
imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.”
—Albert Einstein, “On Science”

To plead the organic causation of a religious state of mind in refutation
of its claim to possess superior spiritual value, is quite illogical and
arbitrary because none of our thoughts and feelings, not even our
scientific doctrines, not even our dis-beliefs, could retain any value
as revelations of the truth, for every one of them without exception
flows from the state of the possessor’s body at the time…Saint Paul
certainly once had an epileptoid, if not an epileptic, seizure, but there
is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or
morbid, that has not some organic processes as its condition.5
Psychologist William
James

Scientist Carl Sagan sometimes used marijuana to produce
highly acclaimed scientific papers. Sagan writes: “The
devastating insights achieved when high are real
insights…The illegality of cannabis [marijuana] is
outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which
helps produce the serenity and insight so desperately needed
in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

I love these stoner science threads

>>3651513
I was actually hoping to have a genuine discussion about a genuinely interesting subject that concerns us all...

>>3651540
Here's a youtube video that I think does a good job of organizing a lot of information together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

Chew on that. Tell me if I'm still crazy.

Love how OP is quoting the monologue from the beginning of Third Eye from Tool, puts up a picture that's in the same grouping of art as the art they commonly use, and is trying to pass it all off as being in touch with the universe. Put the bong down, turn off the music, and pick up a fucking quantum physics book and read some good philosophy books on metaphysics. Also read up on Buddhism.

Fucking stoners.

>Whoa man... so then I was all like... 'consciousness'

>>3651570
God damn it I'm not a fucking clueless stoner. I'm not high, and haven't even mentioned anything about drugs lol. I have read books on quantum physics, albeit somewhat introductory material (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell), but give me a fucking break; it's quantum physics. Lets actually get a discussion about this. Maybe we'll all learn something?

Don't worry OP, I like your posts. :)

Double slit experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViQoUXu5uK0NR=1&feature=fvwp

You are me and I am you. Deal with it.

>>3651570
It's not really Tool but Bill Hicks

>needing to get high to think of these things
Thanks for making me feels weird amongst weirdos /sci/.

>>3651619
The video is wrong.

We are all plank information that is inherently space and we're represented by the matter and energy that waves according to the affirmed plank information and our dreams dictate what will be most possible outcome in the near future.

Welcome to the universal consciousness subjectively experiencing itself in many forms.

In all honesty, I could have expected this kind of reaction. People are always resistant to new ideas. When Copernicus suggested that the solar system was heliocentric people thought he was crazy. It wasn't until many years later when Galileo began publicly supporting his theory that people began to take it seriously, and I image that the implications of quantum mechanics will be even harder for people to accept. Although, I had a similar thread about this in b before bringing it here and I was pretty surprised to discover that they were, for once, very courteous and respectful and we had a wonderful thread. Now I take my discussion about math and science to the math and science board and I get the response I would have expected from b...very strange! I'm not sure if I should attribute it to the fact that the people of this board have a healthy scientific skepticism or the possibility that some of you are a little pompous and exclusive...but that's ok. I forgive you (or should I say me...or us?). If this thread continues to fail I'll just try it again later. I'm very interested in discussing these concepts with people that have a better understanding of them than myself.

>mfw We're all practically on the same point in time and space.

I don't want to be apart of you!

>>3651667

I don't understand what you mean...if any external disturbance could cause this then why would there have even been an interference pattern before the slits were observed?

>>3651681
Healthy skepticism. Oh man you made my night!

Don't worry too much about it. Time kills the old, and makes way for the new. It is a relentless force.

http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-2-what-is-a-thought.html

mass consciousness?

>>3651619
I wanna know why the particles in the tools used in the experiments don't interfere and cause a wave collapse. Why is it detectors alone that cause collapse?

>>3651696
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/through-the-wormhole/
For those interested in the two seasons.

>>3651540
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ Time to educate yourself.

>pic This is what happens to people who don't look at all information available.

>>3651689
Because there isn't anything there to disturb the particles. (Unless you count the slits -- but the only particles that make it to the detector are the ones that don't interact with the slits.) The particles go from the source to the detector.

If you put something in the path of the particles, such as a polarizing filter, to measure which slit the particles go through, then there is something disturbing the particles.

They don't point an eyeball at the particles to see which slit they go through. If they were interacting with light enough to make that possible, there would never have been an interference pattern in the first place.

>>3651690
Yes, you're right. Time (whatever that is) is on our side.

>>3651697
That's a good question about interfering particles from the tools...I'm not 100% on that...but I think the reason why the detectors cause the interference has got to do with the uncertainty principle. It states that the more we know about one facet of a particle, like it's speed, the less we know about it's position and vise versa. This has to do with the techniques we use to measure them. This also applies to waves because of the wave-particle duality. So by trying to measure the particles we have changed them in some unpredictable way...I'm probably not the best at explaining these kinds of things. I was hoping to find some egg head here that could enlighten us all.

We are fucking apes who were lucky enough for our evolution to take the direction of improving intelligence, on one of billions trillions and lots more 0's and then even more we can't see; of floating rocks in the universe, we aren't special or unique, we were just lucky.

Take your pseudoscience and gtfo

>>3651689
Because there isn't anything there to disturb the particles, other than the slits themselves. The particles go directly from the source to the detector.

If you put something in the path of the particles, such as a polarizing filter, to measure which slit the particles go through, then there is something disturbing the particles.

They don't point a disembodied eyeball at the particles to see which slit they go through. If they were interacting with light enough to make that possible, there would never have been an interference pattern in the first place.

>>3651734
>>3651734

Can you link me to some sort of study that corroborates what you're telling me now. Because its my understanding that the results of this experiment have been reproduced by many others and have become more or less accepted facts in the scientific community.

>>3651724
I know that when we measure the particles they end up fixating. I just don't really understand why. In all the reading I have done, and I do a lot. I've found a lot of explanations for how and what happens but not why. I'd be very interested if anyone had a clue.

>>3651730
You sound... challenged. Would you like a hug?

>>3651741
Look at any reference about the double slit experiment except this one cartoon.

>>3651765
You are arguing that instead of measurement causing a drastic change in behavior measurement destroys the interference pattern...would this not cause a drastic change in behavior? I'm sorry, I must be an idiot, because to me that sounds like just two different ways of phrasing the same idea. What exactly are you arguing against? I would love to know if you wouldn't mind taking the time to do a more cohesive write up of your view than a picture you made in mspaint in less than a few minutes.

>>3651818
Mr. Science needs a more cohesive write up. How about you go read your "universe for dummies" book.
Peace.

>>3651818
That is getting into semantics. The video shows the particles making two bands when you measure which slit they went through, as if measuring the particles gave them straight-line trajectories. That's wrong. What you get is very similar to the original distribution, except that the light and dark bands are gone. The reason I wouldn't call that drastic is because you would get the same distribution if half the electrons formed the original interference pattern, and half formed the inverse pattern.

The video is deliberately exaggerating the effect of measurement because it's part of a promotion for a cult that claims that teaches you can get what you want by wishing for it (unfortunately I am not making this up!)

>>3651862
I must say, I feel quite adequately burned. Well done, sir.

>>3651818
That is getting into semantics. The video shows the particles making two bands when you measure which slit they went through, as if measuring the particles gave them straight-line trajectories. That's wrong. What you get is very similar to the original distribution, except that the light and dark bands are gone. The reason I wouldn't call that drastic is because you would get the same distribution if half the particles formed the original interference pattern, and half formed the inverse pattern.

The video is deliberately exaggerating the effect of measurement because it's part of a promotion for a cult that claims that teaches you can get what you want by wishing for it (unfortunately I am not making this up!)

>>3651876

Whoa that definitely would have been good information to know before I bothered posting it. I'll take this as a lesson to always check the source of this.

But what effect does this have on my original point? Particles still exhibit the qualities of waves and waves still exhibit qualities of particles. Observing them closely causes changes in their behavior. The postulate of the interconnectedness of matter still stands. Since we are all composed of the same stuff it isn't too farfetched to believe that all life consists of one 'universal consciousness'.

I'm both sapient and sentient. My thoughts are that this is /sci/ not /phil/ or /circlejerk/ so STFU and take it to the weed board on a certain other chan.

>>3651934
Again with drugs...discussions like these may have become archetypical of drug use, but as another poster was kind enough to point out, is it that ridiculous that someone completely sober would wonder of the possibility of these things? This is more of a discussion of math and science than anything else, so please feel free to skip over the thread if you find its contents disagreeable.

>>3651893
Deleted and reposted to make an edit. (wrote "electrons" where it should have been "particles")

>>3651919
>Since we are all composed of the same stuff it isn't too farfetched to believe that all life consists of one 'universal consciousness'.
I'm not arguing about that, just pointing out the problems with the video. It makes it seem like there's evidence that consciousness is somehow special in the effects it has on the external world when there is not. It's just like any other process.

>Observing them closely causes changes in their behavior. The postulate of the interconnectedness of matter still stands.
You don't need to invoke quantum mechanics to show that everything is interconnected. My brain has a small gravitational influence on the moon, which causes a change in its behavior, although the change is obviously smaller than the sorts of things we can do to physics experiments with our hands.