Here:



In other words that are prettier, the detector must have more energy (be stronger by momentum and inertia) than the particles it is detecting. Think of Brownian motion here and you have it.

_________________
Brandon

Brandon these are the old assumptions, or just plain old shut up and calculate mistakes that need to stop happening, I was talking about:

Actually, MBT explains (predicts the results of) this experiment perfectly. Chris, lost in the computation of QM does not understand how or why QM works. Indeed from his comment above it is clear that he and Feynman have given up altogether on understanding QM - they believe that such an understanding is impossible - and that the way forward for physics is to "shut up and calculate." -- and that is exactly what they have taught Chris and the last two generations of Physicists. As a result, physicists today are decidedly more ignorant about why the double slit experiments works as it does than they were 100 years ago. They have irradicated from their minds and generated "cover stories" to paper over the seminal experiments done by the "founding fathers" that created QM in the first place (the knowledge SS unearthed in his first link). QM has dumbed down to the point where QM theory is no more than the theory of calculating right answers. To that end they have created many descriptive constructs such as "decoherence" and "environment coupling" that are hand waving interpretations of the "physical significance" of their calculating tools. For these same reasons, Chris and contemporary physicists use fuzzy phrases learned in school that indicate that QM scientists have no idea what is actually going on. For example:

"you couple some environment to the photon going through the two slits"

"As for understanding exactly how the apparatus entangles -- well, presumably, we /design/ it to entangle that way."

"The particle "makes up its mind" which counter it is going to set off based on |ψ|², by a process which is not unitary and not well-understood."

" .. and somehow the particle "makes up its mind" which detector to enter."

Tom: Clearly, the mind set is: forget about it , such things are impossible to know. Just do the calculations that we know work.

In fact, they are correct from their perspective. QM is absolutely impossible to understand if you are dedicated to forcing a view of objective causality upon a virtual probabilistic reality. It's those belief traps that get you. every time."

From viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5333&hilit=Chris+Drost
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Yeah, "obviously" that is just more of the same Brandon. They don't know what it is obviously going to do, they just believe they do.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

We make calculations all day long in different ways. There is nothing wrong with calculating. We've discovered new things such as gluon-quark plasma under these calculations. We've actually rearranged our calculations in some regard if you consider M-theory. There is nothing wrong with making calculations.

Feynman theorized nanotechnology under these calculations and thus we have computers with hard drives and memory capable of huge amounts of data in the present day. Feynman meant by "Shut up and calculate" that doing calculations are meaningful, whereas guessing does not. Especially adding a lot of assumptions does not help.

It is not impossible to understand most of quantum mechanics using calculations and observations. And this idea that science is "stuck" just is not true. Science evolves and adapts and takes the lead with calculations that are in some way meaningful. Understanding of quantum mechanics gave Feynman the ideas he had on nanotechnology, which lead to us to chatting on computers across the web now.

It is a really tough thing to swallow here the lack of understanding of science in general even some basics. Science does not have a full understanding of reality, no one ever said it did except those that regard science as something "gross" or whatever.

Throughout the generations, centuries, millennia, people have thought of different concepts that are sometimes true and sometimes totally untrue. You have to remember that there are a lot of ideas out there and most of them are false. To relinquish the difference between fact from fiction would indeed increase conscious entropy, not lower it. So being careful with concepts and reality is of utmost importance.

_________________
Brandon

You did not intake any of the information I put forth, or ignored it, or are unable to intake it because of what you believe. I'm done. I'll try every so often, but you are very strong in your beliefs.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Please then summarize or clarify what I ignored or was unable to intake, in your words please. And likewise.

_________________
Brandon

Physics has a lot of BS in its history that is messing up your understanding today. You have lived all your life, all 22 years, under the assumption, the loving belief, that what you have read, and all, is true, but it is a lot of BS they made up because they had to have something to say to be science. They guessed, and then said those guesses were facts. DO you get it?

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

You're 51 years old right? I'm 24, not 22. It is kind of sad that I get more at the age of 24 than you do at the age of 51. My ideas are more open and flexible, yours are rigid more like a block of concrete. Do not speak of age and disregard this fact. This is more evident of bigotry stirring.

As far as I can tell, you're unaware of most physics because you regard it as BS. Likewise, mysticism is messing up your understanding; the loving belief in MBT, what you have read in MBT, and all that regards MBT is true, but not a lot of others outside of here think the same. You are guessing - with absolutely no evidence - and you say these guesses are facts. Do you get it? So Aristotle thinking goes, but scientific method does not?

_________________
Brandon

Brandon,

Can't you keep your attitudes under control? Try harder. It is unfortunate, if we must consider age, that you have apparently not learned anything since you were 12 perhaps. The attitude that you know everything and no one else knows anything keeps seeping out. Bette's attitude regarding science has more justification that this one of your superiority does. If physics had no mistakes and wrong directions in its history, then why has the paradigm changed so many times? If QM were fully understood, why would there be so much factional disagreement within the ranks of physicists. Contrary to your dearly beloved beliefs, there is no indication that they have it figured out yet.

Ted

Read http://milesmathis.com/central.html

What impression do you get of him? He is basically saying that he has found errors in everything within the physics field, and solved all kind of problems.

He has already decided that everything can only be explained mechanically, and everything else is false.



He is so full of himself. Anyway, he just creates some kind of "B-photon field" in his mind and then says "Hah, explained!", since it cannot even be falsified, it is not a useful model.

Apparently, pi is 4.. http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/inde ... opic=20230

What seems to be a fair review (and informative) of his book: http://www.amazon.com/review/RZ7FPZVTOB ... FPZVTOBHRL

(a bit funny that Brandon almost defended a "crackpot" :) )

A reminder: Stay on-topic.

To all:

I think it is better not to try to compete on who knows more or less, but try to explore truth as any model has plenty of empty spaces to be filled in as new data and new experiments come to be known.
A better strategy than telling somebody that does not follow MBT 100% that is a belief follower is to encourage everybody to be open minded and skeptic. I am working on possible errors shown in the workshops/videos/slides, if you don't oms you won't detect them. I pointed out possible errors but not many were able to catch them. We all have to accept that we have our limitations, but at the same time know that can lower them by just trying to go further than we've been before.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Ted,

How old are you? Just wondering because I never asked. Anyways, thanks, I know my attitude isn't pretty and full of delight, however there is nothing wrong arguing with enemies of reason. I am trying to be collective and approach these issues without much intolerance, but it becomes really hard when it's obvious some people here don't know the reality they are in very well. We need reasonable people whom are comprehensive in today's society in my opinion.

I never said science is a done deal. Why do people keep insisting that I have or am saying that? I never said QM is fully understood, I never said that physics had no mistakes (Yeah, I'm dumb and don't realize the difference made from Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity or any of the other paradigms in science). I never said any of whatever you're thinking I said. The paradigm changes because we continue to learn fact from fiction. A better understanding out of the present calculations and observations. I never said they [science] figured out everything for the umpteenth time. I am however pretty sure that more is being figured out by scientists in action right now than what is going on here however.

Bette's argument is extremely irrational and it always has been. It gives me the baffles how each time she gives irrational and vague details on her beliefs that I am told that I do not see or do not get it. Am I supposed to think much simpler, like a child? If so, sure I get it. Am I supposed to think reasonably and scientifically? I like to, as it seems to give me a better understanding of reality and a lower conscious entropy in the process. It also gives me a much grander understanding of consciousness from my perspective and interpretation. So no, I do not get Bette's explanation, it is based on quite a few umbrella terms and no where close to specific enough to answering anything.

I've also studied spirituality and mysticism too, among other seemingly fictional subjects. It's more of a curiosity of information or knowledge rather than just science in my case.

_________________
Brandon

Brandon,

I am 67. The picture is a picture of me scanned by a line selecting program.

I stand by what I said. I do not see Bette as you describe. (I think that somewhere you did refer to yourself as 22.) I do see you as I describe. You very clearly have the attitude that you know more about physics, and apparently any subject, than anyone else. You have expressed that clearly on occasion, perhaps as a slip, but expressed never the less. You seem to be trying to behave, but you keep slipping up. These are just reminders that I am looking over your shoulder as it were. No grandstanding, just opinion. Definitely no ex cathedra pronouncements if you please.

Ted

Thank you Ted, for that reminder.

Thank you for your reply, S_S as that was my earlier point within my 'aware without a detector' question.

MBT cannot be falsified in most areas. Does this make MBT not a useful model? I don't see your logic.



It is just a perception that Brandon defended a "crackpot". Brandon was trying to explain to Bette. I see too many assumptions around.

Also a crackpot can state truth. People that can be wrong on something can be right on other things and can also bring good ideas. Can you prove these statements wrong?



1. Probabilities in QM don't need to collapse completely. You can change from 100% interference (coherence) to partial interference (some decoherence). When this happens (partial or total decoherence) there is no evidence that consciousness is the cause of it.

Can somebody prove 1. wrong?

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <