Return Home
It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:19 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:52 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 3
Location: San Jose, CA
Has any university or physics lab performed the double-slit experiment thought exercise described by Tom on several of his videos where multiple detector/screen data pairs are collected and placed in envelopes (or any other type of physical media). Then someone selects a data pair and randomly decides whether to destroy the detector data or not before seeing the screen data. This will show how that very action (destroying the detector data or not) "produces" a wave interference pattern or a particle pattern respectively on the screen data.

Such data pairs in physical media could be produced and sent to anyone (for a fee, I guess, to cover costs) who wants to see Tom's interpretation of the double-slit experiment in action.

The holder of the data pairs could then, at the comfort of his home (or at the privacy of the dean's office at any respected university or physics center), randomly pick a data pair, decide whether to burn the detector data or not and his very action will determine what he sees on the screen data.

This could potentially eventually win Tom a Nobel Prize (after all current high priests of Western Culture and belief-trapped Nobel Prize officials are dead, that is) for a new 'interpretation' of the DSE that anyone can see with his/her own eyes ....


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:04 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
That isn't his interpretation of the double slit. Nor is it a proposed experiment. Tom is using those metaphors to describe quantum erasure in laymans terms. There is no need to do any experiment with envelopes, because such erasure experiments have already been done many times before.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:12 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
Radagast-
Do you know the specific lab/paper/researcher who prepared the experiment in this way? I understand the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment essentially put the capstone on the experiment, but I was pondering Tom's layman description the other day as well.

Let's say the double slit experiment was prepared, let's say (for fun), in a vacuum, surrounded by an opaque blackbody material so that no consciousness or detector could directly observe the experiment (putting aside how imperceptible the effect is from a macro viewpoint). The results from the particle detector at the slit and the results of the target are printed directly into envelopes and sealed.
Now let's imagine if there was no foul play, no observation of any data was done, and the particle detector data is destroyed in a closed furnace before viewing. Will the target detector data then show interference every time?
I think a lot of physicists would argue that just by interacting with every step in the chain (the data collection, amalgamation, printing results) the waveform function will collapse and the data will be one way or the other far before the results are actually viewed, no consciousness necessary. But if the experiment was actually performed this way and succeeded, would it not have huge implications for the field?
Just some conjecture.

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:13 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
Radagast-
Do you know the specific lab/paper/researcher who prepared the experiment in this way? I understand the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment essentially put the capstone on the experiment, but I was pondering Tom's layman description the other day as well.
Not sure what you mean here. Every quantum erasure experiment is prepared in the way that allows for Tom's description to be true.
Quote:
Now let's imagine if there was no foul play, no observation of any data was done, and the particle detector data is destroyed in a closed furnace before viewing. Will the target detector data then show interference every time?
I think a lot of physicists would argue that just by interacting with every step in the chain (the data collection, amalgamation, printing results) the waveform function will collapse and the data will be one way or the other far before the results are actually viewed, no consciousness necessary. But if the experiment was actually performed this way and succeeded, would it not have huge implications for the field?
Just some conjecture.
What you're proposing is the "detectors on, but not collecting the detector data" experiment that still produces an interference pattern. This would prove that the detector itself is not a physical factor in the decoherence of the probability wave. Tom mentions this experiment in his videos, and physicists/ignorant physicist forum members vehemently deny that such an experement is even possible, let alone has been done. In fact it has been done...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-sl ... ementarity
"An experiment performed in 1987 [38][39] produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent. In other words, if one does not insist that the method used to determine which slit each photon passes through be completely reliable, one can still detect a (degraded) interference pattern."


So it's not that the detectors detected an interference pattern. That would contradict the whole premise of the double slit. They had detectors on, then somehow created an uncertainty as to which slit the particle went through by muddling or making unreliable the data(which path information), which then allowed for the interference pattern to still be produced (though to a lesser degree). Once again proving that it doesn't matter whether the detectors are on or off, what is important is when we collect the which path information of what slit the particle went through and how concrete/reliable that data is.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:36 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
The argument that some kind of unseen physical interaction at the detector causes wave collapse is about as valid as 'branes' in string theory. The physical interaction causing collapse has to happen at the detectors because before that point the particle functions as a wave. Makes sense, except there are ways of making the detector work without physically touching anything. That is, many experiments have been done, including the one I quoted above, that demonstrate no physical interaction at a detector could be causing wave collapse (not only double slit experiments...think delayed choice quantum erasure).

Further, the mainstream idea that physical interaction causes wave collapse is also used to try and explain other quantum events such as entanglement. Far out language is used, like "from the time the particle is split at the beam splitter onward, the particle is hopelessly and inexorably entangled with its environment". Such ideas are non-answers given by people who want to explain everything in terms of a physical matter based reality. How are they entangled? What is entangling them? What is the physical connection between the particles?

Also I don't think any physicist worth anything would argue that consciousness isn't neccesary. Consciousness is always neccessary...otherwise the results of the experiments cannot be known. The answer to your thought experiment in the vacuum is that it doesn't eliminate consciousness from the equation. That is impossible. What physicists argue is the idea that consciousness causes the wave collapse. Tom does not propose any different, and gives a very good explanation of what actually causes it. An interpretation that can only be described as brilliant. Not only does it explain the double slit, but the same interpretation explains every other kind of quantum weirdness...from entanglement to tunneling. It was this that convinced me that everything this man has to say is profound.

Consciousness and physical observation/interaction are always required in these experiments. However, that does not mean that either necessarily causes the effects we perceive as "weird". Correlation does not imply causation.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:35 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
I am quite familiar with the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, the double slit experiment variants, and Tom's explanation of the double slit. What I (and the OP) are proposing is simply replacing the electronic coincidence counter (or detector system) in such an experiment with actual physical media, paper data sheets in envelopes. This is less of a question about the inner workings of the universe and more of a morbid curiosity over semantics.
Quote:
So it's not that the detectors detected an interference pattern. That would contradict the whole premise of the double slit. They had detectors on, then somehow created an uncertainty as to which slit the particle went through by muddling or making unreliable the data(which path information), which then allowed for the interference pattern to still be produced (though to a lesser degree).
I am not disputing this fact in any way. The second "detector" I referenced was the backboard or target detector, that would show incidences of wave interference when the particle detector data was erased (or in the case of paper in an envelope, burnt). I completely understand that the experiment you've referenced proves that this effect can be reproduced. We're simply pondering the feasibility of replacing the electronic or computer data recording/erasing mechanisms with paper results, in envelopes, as in Tom's description. Does that make sense?
Quote:
Also I don't think any physicist worth anything would argue that consciousness isn't neccesary. Consciousness is always neccessary...otherwise the results of the experiments cannot be known. The answer to your thought experiment in the vacuum is that it doesn't eliminate consciousness from the equation. That is impossible. What physicists argue is the idea that consciousness causes the wave collapse.
The necessity of consciousness is one of the most embattled concepts in quantum mechanics. It's the reason why we have so many interpretations of quantum mechanics, and none are universally agreed upon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
Everett's many worlds interpretation certainly discounts the necessity of a conscious observer; arguing that any time the wave function of a particle collapses, parallel universes split off. We just happen to inhabit a universe where we observe the most probable outcome. The cosmologist in that video, Sean Carroll, is quite vocal in his opinion that conscious observation is essentially woo.
Werner Heisenberg himself argued against the necessity of consciousness in the collapse of the probability function:
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."
We are both here because we agree with Tom's interpretation of reality, but some of the smartest people in the world are working very hard on ideas about things like membranes in higher dimensional space, that could serve to refine or even reinforce our own truth. If we refuse to entertain and integrate modern science, it may move on without us.

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:38 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I'm afraid that we are not really players in the game yet regarding decisions in quantum physics as to what to believe as their consensus or as to their individual choices. Personally it looks like Occam's razor needs resharpening in the case of some of these individual theories where a Virtual Reality maintained by Consciousness becomes a much simpler hypothesis. We can influence individuals who might take our approach and integrate this into their research. And there are such converts who find in their research adequate proof of Tom Campbell's theory as to the nature of Reality and that we live in a Virtual Reality. There have however been historically comments to the effect that science advances slowly, one death at a time.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:21 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
Well said as usual Ted. Einstein himself was not readily accepting of the most fundamental concepts in QM. Both physics and archeology are fields rife with the need for a new generation of thinkers.

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:38 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Zarathustra, im not sure that such an experiment is even possible. For example, the double slit effects could be reproduced with a basketball instead of a photon, but it would require a measuring device the size of the galaxy or larger. I would guess that such galactic scales would be required to perform a macro erasure as well. Don't take my word on that though. I would defer to Tom or another physicist on that matter.

The many worlds theory is as much science as string theory. That is, it is not science. It is an attempt by western material realists to explain reality by inventing infinite universes that do not exist. We can't even find one other universe, so why would we believe in a theory that assumes infinite universes? Outside of that, nothing you said contradicts what I posted. You say that a lot of smart people/scientists believe these things that contradict MBT. That may be true, but as Tom says, belief is a trap. A trap perhaps harder to free ourselves from the more we live from our intellect, which most physicists probably do. To understand that modern scientific beliefs are unscientific is not a rejection of science.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Last edited by Radagast on Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 872
Location: Colombia, South America
We may think that Tom´s model is a good model or even the best, but we must remember that it is a model and we cannot be blind to the advances of other scientists research, otherwise we will lose objectivity and capacity for evaluation and will begin to look more like passionate followers of a religion than of science and philosophy in a purpose-full universe.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:56 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Tom Campbell specifically rejects the idea of becoming or founding a religion and I second this and strongly maintain this attitude on the board. A long time board member advocating this for the future left the board because of having his idea strongly rejected. We cannot control the future but we strongly reject this idea now while we can directly do so. If this is anyone's purpose in coming here, to help found a religion and take a place in its hierarchy, you will be rejected and sadly disappointed.

Ted Vollers as board administrator


Top
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:21 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Wow this is getting crazy guys, hehe. Nowhere did I say I rejected science. I think zarathustra is misinterpreting me in that regard.

Tom states that string theory and others are not real science. That is not a view held only by Tom, or held only by religion or MBT. People who have no knowledge of MBT understand that these theories are not real science. Such an understanding is not a rejection of science. It is a rejection of pseudo science, and an upholding of REAL science.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:40 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 872
Location: Colombia, South America
Radagast, I think you cannot say that string theory is not real science. It is a scientific theory that cannot be proven.
Not falsifiable.
But is is an interesting theory. And it helps science advance in general
You cannot prove Tom´s model either. It is partially based in his consciousness experiences which are subjective, not repeatable.
Based on those experiences and his knowledge of science, he has created a big Model.
Let us not express ourselves so easily about what is science and what is pseudoscience. For many anything metaphysical is pure pseudoscience, pure New Age garbage. Even psychology is considered by some as pseudoscience.

I personally respect the research of all scientists. Without it you and I wouldn´t be communicating with each other now. You would be in your cave, and I would be in mine.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
Radagast, I think you cannot say that string theory is not real science. It is a scientific theory that cannot be proven.
Not falsifiable.
But is is an interesting theory. And it helps science advance in general
You cannot prove Tom´s model either. It is partially based in his consciousness experiences which are subjective, not repeatable.
Based on those experiences and his knowledge of science, he has created a big Model.
Let us not express ourselves so easily about what is science and what is pseudoscience. For many anything metaphysical is pure pseudoscience, pure New Age garbage. Even psychology is considered by some as pseudoscience.

I personally respect the research of all scientists. Without it you and I wouldn´t be communicating with each other now. You would be in your cave, and I would be in mine.
It's a theory that can't be proven and can't be falsified. You said it yourself! Hence, it's not science. But, you're welcome to believe as you will.

Tom's model postulates a subjective reality. If one truly desired, one could indeed take the same path as Tom, explore consciousness, and find results that provide evidence for MBT. It's a different kind of evidence. The idea that all valid evidence must be objective and repeatable always no matter what is another misconception of what true science should be. It is born of a "matter is primary" belief system. If we accepted that view here, then the evidence that PEAR labs and IONS has produced would be considered meaningless, as most of 'science' considers it. Psi experiences are not repeatable, yet we know that there is evidence to support the validity of such phenomena.

I'd be interested in knowing how string theory has helped science advance?

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 872
Location: Colombia, South America
I am not a physicist (although I love physics) but I know that string theory is one of the quantum gravity theories that have been created for the purpose of finally reaching a TOE (since gravity is what doesn´t allow the unification)
It has helped science advance.
Here is an extract from Wikipedia:

"String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions of fundamental physics. String theory has been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Despite much work on these problems, it is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world or how much freedom the theory allows to choose the details"

Radagast, according to what I have read, it is very improbable that it will ever become a theory of everything due to its complexity.

I am not in favor of it or of any other one. What makes Tom´s theory so interesting to me is that it includes consciousness which I agree is fundamental and not the other way around as most scientists believe or want to believe.

For example, during OBE´s "physical reality" looks holographic or virtual and not solid as we see and feel it. Is the non physicality of our consciousness what feels it virtual ? Anyway my experience tells me that it is PMR which is contained in consciousness because big consciousness cannot be contained in a limited brain-body.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited