My Big Toe Forum

Discussion and Explanation of the Writings of Tom Campbell: The Paradigm Changes Here
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:51 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1288
Email exchange between Tom and Claudio on the subject of the double slit Experiment

Claudio and I decided to share these -- I didn't find them posted (because they may be scattered about) so I decided to put them all here in one post so the continuity of the conversation would not be lost. I hope that these may help answer some questions bouncing about in my absense from direct participation (I just cannot find the time to read such lenghty exchanges -- and for that, I appoligize -- unfortunately that cannot be helped.) I, like everyone, must prioritize how I use what is scarce and there seems to be little real meat here that is critical to anyone's personal growth within the big picture. Indeed it seems that there is a larger opportunity for de-evolution than evolution in these double-slit experiment threads -- yet it is popular, so I offer these few meager explanations hoping to resolve some issues -- at least they address some of Claudios issues, which I suspect are shared by others). Hopefully you can follow who is saying what to whom.

Tom


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Claudio Soprano [mailto:soprano@soprano.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:40 AM
To: Tom Campbell
Subject: Important observation regarding irreversible or reversible measurements


Hello Tom:

Dr. Ron Garret states this (I found other similar statements in the Physics Forum) which should make you review the DCQE results:
Quote:
2.2 Quantum erasers
We don't actually have to make a measurement (whatever that means) in order to
make particles stop behaving like waves and start behaving like particles. We
only have to introduce some change that makes it possible in principle to
determine which slit a particular photon passed through on the way to the screen
and we will destroy the interference pattern exactly as if we had actually
measured the particle's position.
For example, if we use light that is polarized in a particular direction and put a
polarization rotator at one of the two slits then the interference pattern will go
away as if we had actually measured the position of the photon. This is because
the polarization rotator makes it possible in principle to determine which slit the
photon has gone through by measuring the photon's polarization.
But this subtle "proto-measurement" is different from a "real" measurement
because it is reversible. The "information" about which slit the photon went
through can be "erased" by introducing a polarizing filter in front of the screen
oriented at 45 degrees to the original polarization axis. The photons that pass
through this filter will all be polarized in the same direction, so it is no longer
possible to tell from which slit they came. Lo and behold the interference is
(mysteriously, of course) restored!

from: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

I poste this also in: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5699&start=90

Claudio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom’s reply:
Claudio,

Thanks, this was worth watching. Dr. Ron Garret is confused on several points but gets some things right. He is not doing double slit, he is doing split and combine experiments. They are similar but not logically equivalent. When he said that the filter eliminates diffraction, it does not entirely eliminate the diffraction pattern, it only eliminates it for all other polarizations other than the one produced by the filter – the diffraction pattern for that polarization remains. The filter has that effect because it changes the light on one path. This is very different than the double slit. He seems to be confused about why it works the way it does.

Entanglement does not violate relativity as he suggests – entanglement does not force information to travel faster than the speed of light, though it does produce a way to send information from A to B without the information traveling from A to B. The Copenhagen interpretation (the interpretation generated by the founders of QM) is not untenable as Garret suggests.

The rest of his talk was not so confused. Once he started talking in math, his story was consistent. Entanglement and measurement are the same phenomenology, his entropy and information arguments showed excellent insight. Thinking that he had to stumble through split and combine experiments to get there (because of his misunderstanding of speed of light violation) was unfortunate.

What he said in that video has no bearing on my description of the double slit, but it does corroborate reality as information rather than being objective.

Since you posted the video, please post these comments on it.

Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An email from Claudio interspersed with comments from Tom:
From: Claudio Soprano [mailto:soprano@soprano.com]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Tom Campbell
Subject: I think I found an important error in what you state

Hello Tom:

I've been thinking about what you state in the double slit but also after reviewing slides 10 and 11 of the Hawaii workshop.

I think all these have a relationship (e.g. hospital stays, beer cans that can vanish).

You state that data can come and go and if data goes, probabilities come back.

I am now considering an alternative for this. Till I find clear evidence till what degree this is the case I prefer to explain the hospital stay case as pure PUP action, the same with the beer cans example.

Reasons against your idea that when data goes, probabilities come back and you can easier make changes:

1. Imagine a group of people that creates an organization based on what you state.

They will organize changes to their benefit based on the fact that if they destroy data, they can easily make changes with their intent.
This could cause big chaos using the following:

A. If digital data disappears, they can easily make changes with their intent. So, they will destroy certain information and immediately (or before that) act with their intent towards some goal for their benefit. They might try to destroy information on banks, government entities, public records, etc., etc.


Note: Actually why didn't anybody already notice this when big amounts of important data was being destroyed. This event would implicate bigger changes and/or potential changes and that should have been noticed already.

B. Killing key people. By killing certain key people they could take advantage of that data that left the PMR Objective records.

Note: Why don't we notice changes when people die, and specially when lots of people die (e.g. wars, catastrophes, deaths of families, etc.)?
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom: That is like saying that they could easily teleport money from a bank into their pocket if the bank didn’t know exactly how much money it had. No bank knows exactly how much money it has at any given moment – there are always errors and thus uncertainty. So it is theoretically possible that some of that uncertain money could materialize in their pants pocket like it did for me when I was a child. That something is theoretically possible does not make it easy or likely. It is neither. The system uses such uncertainty to optimize learning for the whole – if transferring money to your pocket is likely to raise your and perhaps others probability of positive evolution and not violate the PUP, then the system might support that transfer (let it happen, actualize it). It is theoretically possible that all the oxygen molecules in your house will migrate to the ceiling and you will suffocate in your sleep (something like 10-16 as I remember). These issues you mention are probably less probable than that. That the system or our culture would support that activity is even less probable. So all these wild imaginings that people could and would do are nonsense. Such things are less likely to happen than you suffocating at night from a lack of oxygen. These are imaginary problems that do not exist – The PUP also weighs against their existence in our culture. In many places in costal Africa there are groups who do kill others with their intent – they demand protection money from their potential victims. Why doesn’t that happen all over the world? Why didn’t Al Capone work that racket? Our culture doesn’t support it.

Tom: When anybody dies, there is a loss of information – that creates no unusual problems – what sort of problems are you imagining? There is no reason to notice any changes when information is lost. We follow the rule-set constrained by the PUP which is dependent upon the amount of uncertainty surrounding any event – that’s all.
--------------------------------------------------

I'll let you go now only with this. I'd consider leaving this feature in the PMR VR a bad design by TBC if what you state is true. I didn't even go to other issues ...

I thought that I was agreeing with the whole MBT (and I think this was something you introduced after the book, so I agree with the trilogy), but till I have more clear evidence to this particular issue (data coming and leaving creating big potential changes), I'd prefer to leave this feature out of my MBT model, and probably you may consider this after further analysis.

I can just add to my model PUP and attribute the changing back to probabilities only to PUP and related to manipulations to favor evolution (where the big players can choose to allow the manipulations).


Experiments could be done to go in favor or against this issue, but I think we should have already observed this happening in a more regular way (e.g. events after a hospital got in flames and all data of medical records (including lots of x-rays, etc. were destroyed)).
-------------------------------------------
Tom: If hospital records get destroyed what do you expect to happen – a spontaneous healing? Such an event isn’t likely to affect anything or anybody except those people doing research using hospital records. People are not sick or well because of hospital records. Losing data may or may not create a significant amount of uncertainty for anybody to do anything with it.
--------------------------------------
Imagine also what an easier way to heal people: A hospital (owned by the some other group of people taking advantage of the bad VR design) copies the records of a person and gives a disk to the patient. Then the hospital erases the data of that person. Then that person can have a choice to get some people to meditate to try to heal him by doing it two ways (burning that disc or not burning it). Can a person be killed by burning a disk? It should be possible if you think about it in a certain case if what you say holds.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: If what I say holds, death by burning disk is just as ridiculous as it sounds.
---------------------------------------
Can the health of a person or other important future events be so dependent on a disc?

Claudio

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An email from Claudio interspersed with comments from Tom:

From: Claudio Soprano [mailto:soprano@soprano.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:45 AM
To: Tom Campbell
Subject: Please consider this important observation

Hello Tom:

I'll get back to you regarding the previous email. I'll build better examples for you to see my point. I see it but I have to better transmit it to you so you don't just neglect it as nonsense as some of your comments.

I am doing you and all a favor by finding errors or possible errors. I think I am good in finding errors and being open minded skeptic, so please consider my observations. I don't want to make you waste your time. If I make an observation to you is only after I thought about it deep.
------------------------
Tom: Claudio, I have no doubt about your good intentions. But so far I have put many precious hours into this double slit issue that you have and have not yet found anything that indicates a problem.
-----------------------------------
In the workshops of TMI and New York you say the following:

1. If we leave the detectors ON but we don't record (we don't put a tape to record the detections) we see an interference pattern.

My Observation: If the detector is ON, there is an interaction between the measuring device and the particles that pass through the slit. Actually, experiments have shown that interactions with particles not always collapse probabilities completely (100%).
------------------------
Tom: Yes, I agree.
--------------------------------
I think there is a recent tendency to use the term decoherence instead of collapsing, because you can have partial interferences (so the percentage can range, it does not need to be all or nothing). I'll send you the references if you want to.
--------------------------------------
Tom: No need
------------------------------------
Now, it comes the important part. An interaction is done because of the detectors (by the way I found out that only one detector at one slit is enough to eliminate interference).
-----------------------------------
Tom: I am not so sure of that -- it may or may not be true. I would have to see some research to know for sure. [After some thought it is my initial opinion that if only one slit were had a detector, the result would be mixed – one would get both clumping behind the slit with the detector and an interference pattern with equal “hits “ in both the clumping and the diffraction pattern -- However, I wouldn’t put a large bet on that until I saw the results of the experiment.] It is definitely true of the split and recombine experiments which are often passed off as an analog to the double slit because it has some of its characteristics and is much easier to do, however the two are not logically equivalent.
-------------------------------

You said that if we don't put a tape to "record" that the particle went through one slit or the other we see interference, but what is the difference between imprinting the result in a tape or in the screen we are looking at behind?
-----------------------------------------------
Tom: There is a huge fundamental difference. The double slit only works as it does is because of this difference. The availability (or not) of information about the position of the particle at the slit (before interference can occur) is what determines whether or not diffraction does occur.
-------------------------------------------
Tom, read this carefully. Let's say we fire one photon at a time. A detector detects whether it goes or not to one of the slits (like I said, one detector is enough, consider this comment for your future workshops), we don't need to imprint it in the tape to "know", cause it is going to imprint in the screen where it went. We can observe each photon, where it landed, independent on a tape. Actually the screen where we see the results (if we got interference or not) acts in a similar way that if we use a video camera and film the landing of each photon.
------------------------------------------
Tom: What you say here is true, but it has nothing to do with the double slit experiment. Your words imply that you have an implicit assumption that light (or an electron) is always a particle. It is not. It is a probability distribution that can sometimes act as a wave and sometimes act as a particle (when a measurement is made). When a photon or electron hits a screen, the screen produces a measurement thus the screen intercepts particles. In other words, the photons or electrons become particles when the screen measures their location. If this position information is unknown as the photons approach and interact with the slits, the photon or electron, existing only as a probability distribution, goes through both slits. This is the fundamental basis of QM.

Tom: Claudio, read this carefully. I know that you think that what you said in the paragraph above is logical and significant, but it is not. It demonstrates the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It would seem that you are totally convinced that you understand what is going on in the double slit experiment because you have read a few things at the layman’s level which you do not fully understand. The double slit experiment is something that many physicists do not fully understand unless they have specialized in this area, studied it for years….and still there is room for argument between qualified professionals with years of study in the field. You read a few things at the layman’s level, collect a few opinions, and are certain that you know what you are talking about. Because you don’t know what you don’t know, you think you understand it all. Perhaps it is just a language problem and you are not able to express what you wish to say with precision in English but I do not think so.

Tom: I do very much appreciate that you are trying to be helpful. I know that you have a good intent but so far, having read your issues diligently, I have seen nothing that would indicate that reality works any differently than I describe it. Now, that does not mean that I am convinced that I am right. I always remain open-minded and skeptical – that is why I always take the time away from other business I should be doing to read your letters --- if there is an error, I need to find it and fix it. Because you claim with certainty that you have found errors, I pay attention your letters – they have been a must read for me but so far I have found no real problems.
------------------------------------------
Bottom line. If a detector is ON even for one of the slits, independent on the tape or not tape you won't get an interference pattern on the screen, TBC knows already that the question was asked and answered updating the VR. Hope you fix this error for your next workshop.

The following video (you'll see Anton Zeilinger) describing the double slit helped me build my observation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2N4SbORKh8
Claudio
--------------------------------------------
Tom’s reply:
Claudio,

Indeed, I will carefully consider any observation that points toward an error. Finding errors is very important to me. (see comments above)

Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An email from Claudio interspersed with comments from Tom:

From: Claudio Soprano [mailto:soprano@soprano.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Tom Campbell
Subject: Re: Please consider this important observation


Tom:

With all the respect, think for a moment that you may be wrong when you said that if you don't put a tape you will see interference. You know that TBC also models the imperfection.
----------------------------
Tom: That is always my going in position – That I may be wrong. That is why I read your email
-----------------------------------
Let's say you put a tape that is not perfect. Are you going to tell me that at the instance when it is recording over a bad sector of the tape the interference is going to come back and also when you reach the end of the tape?
--------------------------------------
Tom: Yes. Exactly.
-------------------------------
I am not saying that I know it all. I am detecting you may have some ego after all. I am not competing with you. Think with open minded skepticism and try not to bring your ego at all. Don't you think that if somebody had played with tapes or other media to store information during an experiment and detected the anomalies that you suggest that they wouldn't have reported them?


Don't just picture me like Ted as an Argentinian, programmer, etc. That is irrelevant, as well as that if I think I know it all or not. I don't assume that. I am convinced that this is a Virtual Reality. You helped me to convince myself. I am just not convinced about some of your details about how the VR works. I am not arguing with you. I don't mind who's right or wrong. I just think that this time I am right, independent on who read more about double slit or who had a better understanding. You may have understood some aspects better than me and I might have discovered some other ones. We can do team work and adjust.
-----------------------------------
Tom: It’s not about you Claudio --I am, and have been entirely open to trying to find errors and seeing if you might have something. I simply cannot find any errors. There may well be errors but you have not pointed any out to me. I am simply sharing with you the way I see it
--------------------------------------
I've searched for videos in the internet. I searched papers. I see videos with detectors and no tape at all. Nobody mentions a "tape" difference or a "media" causing difference.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: The tape is irrelevant, it’s a metaphor people can understand. Nobody uses tape today. Only the information is relevant – the media that carries the information is inconsequential.
-----------------------------------------
Are you betting it all on Ross Rhodes? By the way, he doesn't mention a tape in his chapter, he just came up with a generalization that you seem to trust 100%.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: I gave several presentation of my understanding on the double slit (which has not changed) before I ever heard of Ross Rhoads. When I found Ross’ site, I was pleased that it verified 100% what I had presented based on my personal understanding of physics. I think Ross Rhoades has a good site because of his bibliography. And because other scientists I know also conclude that Ross has an accurate site. It comes highly recommended by several people I know who are qualified by education and experience to know if it is right or not. It agrees with the Copenhagen Interpretation which was the consensus of the founding fathers of QM. He is not quoting Scientific American or YouTube, he is quoting The Physical Review and such – the top end journals for publishing original physics research. I do trust Ross Rhoads descriptions. He is thorough and precise as one can be without a math based description. What he says agrees with the understanding I picked up in graduate school.
-------------------------------------
In any case you say "they" put a tape, and you don't have so far a way to back that up. You also don't mention what you are describing is a "thought experiment".
------------------------------------------------
Tom: I do usually infer that this is a thought experiment. I do not recall each of the many times I have given this presentation but I at least intend to say something like this…” we can imagine that….? Or “ … here is one way to look at it”. However when I stand up and talk, I don’t always actually say what I intended when developing the presentation.

Tom: However, I agree that I should make that clearer so people like yourself who want to dig into the details don’t get confused.

----------------------------------------
But again, I am on your side. I care about you. Are you going to bet everything in just thinking of reducing the problem to me talking nonsense? You can prove me wrong showing me a video with an experiment where "media storage" change outcomes of an experiment. How come I can't find any information like that? I keep searching and keep seeing that as a non-factor.

You are assuming that I think this way: [previous comment by Tom: ] "Your words imply that you have an implicit assumption that light (or an electron) is always a particle. It is not. It is a probability distribution that can sometimes act as a wave and sometimes act as a particle (when a measurement is made). When a photon or electron hits a screen, the screen produces a measurement thus the screen intercepts particles. In other words, the photons or electrons become particles when the screen measures their location. If this position information is unknown as the photons approach and interact with the slits, the photon or electron, existing only as a probability distribution, goes through both slits."

I am not thinking the way you assume. I like your model. I agree with your model and you in mostly everything, just except what I am pointing out to you. A VR can be designed so that when a detector tries to see if a particle passed through a slit or not it can change its response to the Consciousness observing. You assume that it depends on the "media" that stored the information.
---------------------------------------
Tom: I assume no such thing; the media has nothing to do with it.
-------------------------------------------------

I'd like to believe you, but I don't find the evidence. Actually, the evidence points to "media storage" not being such a factor ( I should hope so, since it is not a factor) (except to facilitate PUP and that's related to the other email). We are talking about some details, but these details may mean discredit for you and I don't want that. I am on your side.
--------------------------------------
Tom: Below is a quote from Bottom layer on the page I sent you to in my first response. Especially try to understand 2) and 3) and 4 since they very clearly make all the points that I make and that you question.

Bottom Layer quote starts here:
• Turn off the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and leave everything intact. But, we will conduct the experiment with the electron detectors at the slits turned off, so that we will not actually detect any electrons at the slits.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that mere passage through the electron detectors at the slits does not affect the electron, so long as those electron detectors are not functioning.
2. Leave the electron detectors on, but don't gather the information. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. But, we will not actually look at the count of electrons at the slits, nor will we record the count at the slits in any way, so that we will not be able to obtain any results from these fully-functioning electron detectors.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that the electron detectors located at the slits do not themselves affect the electron, even when the equipment is fully functioning and detecting (in a mechanical sense) the electrons, so long as we don't obtain the results of these measurements.
3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling.
4. Arrange the experiment so that we can make an arbitrary choice at some later time, after the experiment is "complete," whether or not to use the information gathered by the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But (this gets a little complicated), we will
(1) mix the data from the slits with additional, irrelevant garbage data, and record the combined (and incomprehensible) data;
(2) design a program to analyze data coming from the slits in one of two ways, either
(a) filtering out the garbage data so that we will be able to obtain clean results of electrons going through the slits, or
(b) analyzing the mixed-up data so that we will not be able to obtain the results of electrons going through the slits; and
(3) leave it up to a visiting politician which way we actually analyze the data from the slits.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(a): a particle clumping pattern appears from the data.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(b): an interference pattern appears from the data.
So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that.
The proverbial tree has already fallen in the forest, and we can later choose whether or not to listen. And if we choose to listen then the falling tree will have made a noise, and if we choose not to listen then the falling tree will not have made a noise.
What is the difference? It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not.
In searching for the wave-like phenomenon that must, it simply must be taking place in the unmodified electron double slit experiment, the theorists are left with the equivalent of a parent's worst nightmare: you hear the screaming and pounding and crashing of broken lamps from the child's room; but every time you open the door . . . there sits the innocent little darling like an angel, eyelashes batting, smiling beatifically (probably reading the Bible), "Yes, Mother/Father, can I help you with something?" You close the door in bewilderment, and immediately the racket starts up again. Well, the theorists know that there is something wave-like going on. They can see the indisputable evidence of waves in the interference pattern and in their extraordinarily precise predictions based on a wave model. But, every time they look for the wave itself -- there is no wave, only a particle. And, perversely, all evidence of waves simultaneously disappears!
The measurement effect. With sublime understatement, this phenomenon is referred to as "the measurement effect." When we measure (or detect, or see, or quantify, or determine, or otherwise gain knowledge of) something at the quantum level, the very act of measurement will have an effect on the thing itself. To all intents and purposes, the act of a sentient being in seeking a measurement will cause the thing to have a property which can be measured, and thereby produce a definite property that can be measured.
Since around 1927, the standard quantum mechanical explanation for the difference between results in the double slit experiments particularly, and for the measurement effect generally, is that in one set of experiments, we know (or more precisely, we can in principle know)[2a] which slit the electron went through; and in the other set of experiments, we don't know (i.e., we cannot know even in principle)[2a] which slit the electron went through. This conclusion is one facet of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics (so named because it was developed by Niels Bohr's institute located in Copenhagen, Denmark), which represents the closest thing to a consensus among physicists for the last seventy years or so.
The difference is whether we know. The difference is whether we choose to have the information available.
• If we demand to know which slit the particle went through, then a particle must appear at one slit or the other so that we will have an answer to our question; and so our curiosity has caused there to be a particle at one of the slits, and now there is a particle; and if there is a particle at one slit or the other, it must obey the rules for particle motion, and so it does.
• Conversely, if we do not demand to know which slit the particle went through, no particle need appear at either slit; and so we have not caused there to be any particle, and now there is no particle; and if there is no particle at either slit, the system remains free to roam the universe in whatever form seems most pleasing to itself.
And all of this is determined at the time we demand the knowledge, not at the time we institute any mechanical processes for obtaining the information.
Bottom Layer quote ends here.

-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let me know if you feel I bother you. I can post all this in the board and continue without your opinion if you authorize me. I did it this way, because I don't want you to look bad and wait for what you think is the best way.
-------------------------------------------
Tom: Yes you have been a bother but one I appreciate and don’t mind because you are trying to do exactly what I want – digging in with critical skepticism trying to find issues and flaws.

Tom: I think it would be a great idea and encourage you to post ALL your emails and ALL of my responses on the forum – No editing -- let this discussion be shared.

Tom
[Subsequently Claudio agreed that they would be posted] and perhaps they are but I couldn’t find them – at least all in one place -- so I thought I would pull them together here.

----------------------------------------------------
Again. I don't change my feelings about you. I respect you and I feel love for you. Before anything, I wait for your response.

Thanks for reading my emails and answering. I may be imperfect, may create nonsense, by my intents are positive, IMO. If not, I'll also welcome feedback.

Take care,

Claudio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final email from Claudio:
From: Claudio Soprano [mailto:soprano@soprano.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:20 PM
To: Tom Campbell
Subject: Re: Please consider this important observation

Hello Tom:

I am posting all in the board. When I said: "It depends on the media", I didn't mean to say it depends on the type of the media, but if there is a media present to record or not and if the media has defects or not. I am not implying that anything changes if you use a DVD, CD, tape or different brands.

Claudio
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom’s reply:

OK, that’s good….
Tom

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:26 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 414
Aside from all the technical details, the outstanding thing about Tom's responses is how calm, measured and - low entropy - they are. The closest he gets to expressing any disgruntlement at all is to say it has been "a bother", but one that he appreciates, and doesn't mind.

Tom teaches by his own example. PMR challenges us everyday to choose to behave similarly - but how often do we?

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:18 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 2150
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Thank you Tom. This is the lesson.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:32 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 2553
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Tom: "... I, like everyone, must prioritize how I use what is scarce and there seems to be little real meat here that is critical to anyone's personal growth within the big picture. Indeed it seems that there is a larger opportunity for de-evolution than evolution in this thread...."



That should indicate a guiding criteria for all of us as to whether to submit a post.

-Montana:
-


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:31 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 156
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Claudio: Here is a very interesting variation of the double slit experiment done in 2005. In this experiment the slits exist in time not space. Maybe this experiment could assist you in your quest for understanding by looking at the same problem from a different angle.
Double-Slit Experiment in Time, Not Space

Here is a description of the experiment in layman terms posted by a user at: slashdot.org
Quote:
In the new example, two pulses of light can trigger an electron to be released. Think of these two pulses as pulling a trigger on a gun while playing russian roulette. The electron is the bullet and the detector is your head. If you pulled the trigger at 0 secs and 2 secs, you'd expect to see a person die at 0.01 seconds and/or/neither 2.01 seconds, assuming it took 0.01 seconds for the bullet to reach the person and kill him.

The detector, however sees an interference pattern. This is like seeing deaths at 1 second or 1.5 seconds. The interference pattern is measured as a function of time, and instead of seeing two blips in time, they saw a range.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:33 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Miami, FL
Thank you MeClam, but till the problem in this board is solved by Tom I would prefer to investigate reality in an environment where is comfortable and enjoyable to do so. I'll let you know which one that can be. May be Facebook or some other board.

Claudio

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

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:36 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 414
Interesting link, Meclam! What a very neat and ingenious way of doing that experiment. Having worked in laser R&D for many years, many years ago, I am in awe of how they tailored those pulses so precisely. Its meaning, re the recent discussions here, needs further pondering, however. First thought, top of head, is that it doesn't really change anything.

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."


Top
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:43 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 156
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Uncollapsing the wavefunction by undoing quantum measurements
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 3468v1.pdf

Abstract:
Quote:
We review and expand on recent advances in theory and experiments concerning the problem
of wavefunction uncollapse: Given an unknown state that has been disturbed by a generalized
measurement, restore the state to its initial configuration. We describe how this is probabilistically
possible with a subsequent measurement that involves erasing the information extracted about the
state in the first measurement. The general theory of abstract measurements is discussed, focusing
on quantum information aspects of the problem, in addition to investigating a variety of specific
physical situations and explicit measurement strategies. Several systems are considered in detail:
the quantum double dot charge qubit measured by a quantum point contact (with and without
Hamiltonian dynamics), the superconducting phase qubit monitored by a SQUID detector, and an
arbitrary number of entangled charge qubits. Furthermore, uncollapse strategies for the quantum dot
electron spin qubit, and the optical polarization qubit are also reviewed. For each of these systems
the physics of the continuous measurement process, the strategy required to ideally uncollapse the
wavefunction, as well as the statistical features associated with the measurement is discussed. We
also summarize the recent experimental realization of two of these systems, the phase qubit and the
polarization qubit
This is the first paper that I had found, but it seemed just the theory behind it:
Uncollapsing the wavefunction
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/070 ... 0365v1.pdf

Googling the keywords "Uncollapsing the wavefunction" will lead to more results.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 113
Arent all of these permutations of double slit just experimentations along the lines of the thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat?
Bottom line is you can arrange all of the toys in time or space or any which way you want inside the black box.. ultimately none of it makes any difference since all possibilities exist until a facet of consciousness decides to take a peek.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:03 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:30 pm
Posts: 1073
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: New York City
excellent work by all!!!



patrick

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:03 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:21 am
Posts: 22
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Kiev (Ukraine)
Interesting that you've mentioned teleporting money. My friend in Moscow practice teleportation on 5-rouble coins. Their current worth is about 1/6 of a dollar. So it's not aimed at earning money.
I even helped them to do online video lessons and some online students had results on their first session.
Now I see how all this is set up.

I tried it myself, but didn't succeed. Actually, when I counted money in my wallet after the exersize I was short some amount. But I've seen several people teleport money into their wallets or pokets. One of them has even teleported paper money (banknotes).
I assumed one need to be more psychic than to do it.

They even claimed that they can place a marked coin into one room and teleport it into another room. Also they claimed that they can teleport coins "from somewhere" into a ceramic cup in front of them. When they attempted to film this - it didn't work. The practitioner wasn't able to teleport the coin.
Quote:
Tom: That is like saying that they could easily teleport money from a bank into their pocket if the bank didn’t know exactly how much money it had. No bank knows exactly how much money it has at any given moment – there are always errors and thus uncertainty. So it is theoretically possible that some of that uncertain money could materialize in their pants pocket like it did for me when I was a child. That something is theoretically possible does not make it easy or likely.

_________________
I give Sending Love seminars http://www.facebook.com/isendlove
and also I research magic http://www.facebook.com/create.reality


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:51 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 156
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Particle wave duality demonstrated with largest molecule yet.
Article:http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vao ... 12.34.html
Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCiOMQIR ... ata_player


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:16 am
Posts: 299
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Salem VA.
All of the technical debate was interesting, But the main point in my view was the challenge to explain a complex issue. Of course there was ego present, reflecting that part was important in communication.Exchanges like this is in my view the fast track to finding truth,seems like challenging and being challenged creatively is a great way to evolve our QoC. And grow up! Fred searching for truth


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited