Return Home
It is currently Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:32 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 3:48 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Dear friends,

I have a question regarding the quantum eraser experiment, explained by Tom Campbell in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo176uIPmbY:
What happens if we look at the “screen image” envelopes first?

My estimation is that if we look at the “screen image” envelopes first before destroying the “which way” envelopes, we see 2 strips (classical particle behavior), even if the “which way” envelopes are never looked at (or destroyed).

Otherwise, according to my understanding, this leads to the following paradox:
If the “screen image” envelope shows diffraction image (wave behavior), we then open the “which way” envelope, and have a contradiction.
On the other hand, if the “screen image” envelope shows 2 strips (classical particle behavior), we then destroy the “which way” envelope, and have a contradiction again.

In addition, according to my understanding, even if we perform the experiment exactly as explained in the video, we could predict future events as follows:

For example, suppose we want to know how many years someone (a 20 years old guy) will live (in 10 years resolution). We can do the following:
We do the quantum eraser experiment like Tom suggests 10 times, and give that person the 10 “which way” envelopes, marked 1 to 10.
Each decade, this person will destroy one envelope at a time.
After his death, his siblings will publish the remaining envelopes.

Now, immediately after the experiment we look at the “screen image” envelopes, and see how many of them shows a diffraction pattern, which tells us how many years he will live…

Your answers/comments are greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Last edited by Avi Tal on Thu May 24, 2018 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 2:33 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Hi Avi Tal,

Tom's example is a simplified version of the double slit. He is showing you how weird it is in his example. Here how I break it down from a sampling perspective:

1. You have a double slit experiment with no detectors and the screen shot produces multiple bars attributed to a wave pattern.
2. You have a double slit experiment with detectors, at the slits, and the screen shot produces two bars and no apparent wave pattern.

Now, I am going to run an experiment and "sample" the results using number two above: I will run it 102 times. The data from the detectors at the slit are placed in envelope and marked A. The data from the screen shot are put in an envelope and marked B. Both A and B for test #1 are put into a envelope marked #1 and so on.

I open envelope number #1 and #102 and open A and B (first) envelopes and there is no wave pattern in B. I can conclude that there is a 1.97% probability that the remaining envelopes will produce the same result. I decide to look at 50 more envelopes of the remaining 100. The data in all 50 of the envelopes examined indicates no wave pattern. There is now a 51% probability that the remaining 50 will produce the same result. I decide to look at 49 more and there is no wave pattern. There is now a 99% probability that the last envelope will reveal the same pattern. I decide also to change one variable for the one remaining envelope.. I remove the detector envelope marked A and destroy it so that it cannot be read. I open the envelope marked B and the data indicates a wave pattern appears. Why because there was no evidence of detection ie, the experiment was not observed This is the "weird" part of the double slit.

I can say with confidence that with the detectors in place, there is a 100% probability that there will ne no wave pattern.

If you were to conduct an experiment using number one above, every one of the 102 experiments would reveal a wave pattern because detectors are not part of the experiment. This anomaly manifested itself due to the placement of detectors.

Respectfully,

John


Top
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 1:45 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Hi Jhon,

Thanks allot for your answer.

For the one remaining envelope pair you mentioned: What happens if you open the envelope marked B before destroying the envelope marked A, and then destroy the envelope marked A which was never looked at?

Does it matter which is done first? The destruction of part A or the reading of part B?

Thanks,
Avi Tal


Top
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 6:52 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Hi Avi Tal,

Quote:
For the one remaining envelope pair you mentioned: What happens if you open the envelope marked B before destroying the envelope marked A, and then destroy the envelope marked A which was never looked at?

Does it matter which is done first? The destruction of part A or the reading of part B?
Remember this is an example of a complex QM experiment that as of yet has not been explained. In the aforementioned scenario, opening envelope B before destroying envelope A, will produce a wave pattern. It does not matter what comes first " The chicken or the egg".


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=qu ... ORM=VRDGAR

Regards,

John


Top
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1540
Location: Lincoln, NE
Thanks for that video link, John.

I watched it all, and saw lots of familiar material.

Keep on Truckin'.


Top
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Quote:
Thanks for that video link, John.

I watched it all, and saw lots of familiar material.
Pleasure is all mine. It deviates from Tom's virtual reality model as it refers to a reality based belief system ie we are energy beings.


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Hi John,

Thanks again for the answer.
I hope that I am not nagging too much...

You wrote:
Quote:
opening envelope B before destroying envelope A, will produce a wave pattern. It does not matter what comes first
So, if we open envelope B before destroying envelope A, and see a wave pattern in envelope B, and then open envelope A, we will see the "which way" information?
If not, what will we see in envelope A?

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Quote:


You wrote:
Quote:
opening envelope B before destroying envelope A, will produce a wave pattern. It does not matter what comes first
So, if we open envelope B before destroying envelope A, and see a wave pattern in envelope B, and then open envelope A, we will see the "which way" information?
If not, what will we see in envelope A?

Are you ready for my answer? Drum roll, please.


Envelope A will be empty.


Regards,

John


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Dear Jhon,

Again, thank you very much for your answer.

So, correct me if I am wrong (I probably am...), but according to your last answer it seems like it does matter which envelope is looked at first...
If we look at A first, we see the which way information in A and particle behavior in B.
If we look at B first, we see a diffraction pattern in B and empty data in A?

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Quote:
If we look at A first, we see the which way information in A and particle behavior in B.
If we look at B first, we see a diffraction pattern in B and empty data in A?
Avi Tal,

The envelope example is not the experiment. Watch this video on the double slit including the corroborating evidence. This is where your attention should be focused. This will explain the answer to your question:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

Regards,

John


Top
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:14 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 3:14 am
Posts: 12
Hi John,

I watched the video you shared, and the truth is that I did not fully understand it (it is much more complex then the envelope simplification...).

Nevertheless, I found the following video which contradicts the conclusions (not the results) of the video you shared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-PAjJcRVCs

Can the explanation in the second video be contradicted?

Thanks,
Avi Tal.


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 8:08 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Posts: 991
Good morning Avi Tal,

John Archibald Wheeler is quoted in the video attached to your previous post. Please find attached the Wiki on Mr. Wheeler and below it is his position on the Participatory Anthropic Principle (bold is mine).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

Participatory Anthropic Principle[edit]

Wheeler speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asked about the existence of space and time.[77] He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle.

In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.


Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.[78]

In developing the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), an interpretation of quantum mechanics, Wheeler used a variant on Twenty Questions, called Negative Twenty Questions, to show how the questions we choose to ask about the universe may dictate the answers we get. In this variant, the respondent does not choose or decide upon any particular or definite object beforehand, but only on a pattern of "Yes" or "No" answers. This variant requires the respondent to provide a consistent set of answers to successive questions, so that each answer can be viewed as logically compatible with all the previous answers. In this way, successive questions narrow the options until the questioner settles upon a definite object. Wheeler's theory was that, in an analogous manner, consciousness may play some role in bringing the universe into existence.[79]

From a transcript of a radio interview on "The Anthropic Universe":


Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[80]


Some of us look at the details of MBT and ask why? Others among us look at the larger meaning of MBT and ask why not? Mr. Wheeler supported the fundamental that consciousness creates.

Regards,

John


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:33 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1540
Location: Lincoln, NE
Thanks for the 'backstory' to Wheeler.

I've not read most of that material even though, I'm somewhat familiar with Wheeler's 'it from bit' thesis.


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:08 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:44 am
Posts: 23
Hi all,
MBT Physics Experiments Supergroup

https://t.me/MBT_Supergroup

Feel free to jump on board the Telegram chat App.

Regards
D.Cleaver


Top
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 5:25 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1540
Location: Lincoln, NE
Quote:
Hi all,
MBT Physics Experiments Supergroup

https://t.me/MBT_Supergroup

Feel free to jump on board the Telegram chat App.

Regards
D.Cleaver
Hello,

I did a <view group> at the link you provided, and got the following response:
Quote:
The address wasn’t understood

Firefox doesn’t know how to open this address, because one of the following protocols (tg) isn’t associated with any program or is not allowed in this context.
Is it my Firefox browser the issue or a tweak needed on the telegram ?

I din't add any chat software, either.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited