Return Home
It is currently Fri May 24, 2024 7:44 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 pm
Posts: 14
Before an electron has been detected there is no electron, there is a probability wave function of the electron showing up at any point of measurement. If we do not measure at the slits, but only at the screen behind the slits we will see a defraction pattern. So this means the wave fiunction of posibility has interacted with the slits as if it were a wave of energy in the same realm as the slits. We might just as well imagine that there is no interaction at all between a possibility and an opbject like the plate with 2 slits.

So is this 'just the rule set' or is there something more to say about this interaction between something non manifest (the probability) and something manifest (the slits)?


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
gmeerstadt,

I suggest that you read first Tom Campbell's introduction to how QM works in a Virtual Reality. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2453#p2828 And from there you might go on to download and read about the Virtual Reality Rendering Engine as the second stage of the creation of a VR by TBC.

Next you might be interested to know that Tom Campbell, along with some associate co authors who are still active physicists, has written a paper on some proposed QM experiments to prove that this is a Virtual Reality. https://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewt ... 88#p100673 There is a link there to download the paper as published.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 pm
Posts: 14
Thank you Ted,
that's quite some material to study.

Meanwhile what would your 'of the cuff' short conversational answer tot the question above be? I'd really like to know.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Bottom line is that nothing is 'manifest' as such. This is a virtual reality which means that it is calculated by The Big Computer and the data describing the VR and everything that happens to you as an avatar within the VR is then sent to your IUOC and experienced as you, the avatar, and everything that happens to you. That is why I referred you to sources that will explain to you how this works. Many people have described the VRRE paper as easy to understand, not a 'scientific paper' while the real scientific paper need not be downloaded unless you feel prepared to go into the details. I haven't bothered to go into that myself. At 73, and never a physicist but an engineer, that fight for understanding isn't worth the effort and would probably fail.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:30 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 pm
Posts: 14
Well Ted,

actually my question did not arise from not understanding how it works, but rather from understanding it and after that coming up with this question on top of how it is technically supposed to work.

It is good to know that understanding that life is a virtual reality doesn't suddenly change things. It also was a virtual reality when we did not know that, so the way it interacts with us can still be addressed. So an intriguing issue may be how a mathematical possibility can interact as a wave with a virtually manifested double slit. You haven't reacted to that thought directly yet.

And besides I don't think that a live forum is here to point each other to things that have already been written, but to assume that the other understands the basiscs too and then come to a live exchange of thoughts to explore and stimulate new ideas and insights, not to keep backtracking the existing ones. This thing is alive and in constant progress of understanding.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:49 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:05 pm
Posts: 49
gmeerstadt wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:30 am Well Ted,

actually my question did not arise from not understanding how it works, but rather from understanding it and after that coming up with this question on top of how it is technically supposed to work.

It is good to know that understanding that life is a virtual reality doesn't suddenly change things. It also was a virtual reality when we did not know that, so the way it interacts with us can still be addressed. So an intriguing issue may be how a mathematical possibility can interact as a wave with a virtually manifested double slit. You haven't reacted to that thought directly yet.

And besides I don't think that a live forum is here to point each other to things that have already been written, but to assume that the other understands the basiscs too and then come to a live exchange of thoughts to explore and stimulate new ideas and insights, not to keep backtracking the existing ones. This thing is alive and in constant progress of understanding.
Tom discussed one aspect of your question in a recent fireside chat. He has given some thought on this, and bottom line, doesn't have a direct answer. i seem to recall three possibilities - one it is rule set, but if i recall correctly, this seems unlikely. If it was rule set, it could just render the electron without it passing through a detection process, and never present the situation in which the diffraction appears. (Everyone would be happy in the material world view.)

The second was, given the above, it could be glitch. Some remnant that the larger system didn't anticipate or expect us to pass electrons through slits one at a time, and once the diffraction pattern was shown, it had to be consistent with the glitch.

The third, (and if i recall, Tom's more preferred) was it was left on purpose (perhaps possibly part of the anthropic principle). Tom hypothesizes that leaving this breadcrumb that messes with physical principles of matter would leave an unknown that would lead our culture to question our understandings of the nature of reality. (in which case, mission accomplished.)

(If the third is true, then your subquestion about manifestation is more a cause and effect, and not fundamental).

Hope this helps...

~brian


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
gmeerstadt,

Actually this board is not here to engage in speculation. There is a 'Chat' forum for that. This board is here to maintain clear statements of what Tom Campbell teaches. Extensions of MBT would be welcome but so far the only person who has done that, other than Tom Campbell is myself, frequently in collaboration with Tom Campbell. I will re read this thread to see if there is any indication that you do understand what Tom teaches versus it being worth while to actually have you read the suggested information.

I will also attempt to see if there is a known answer to your question, presuming that I can clearly understand you.

I have read the thread and still do not clearly understand what you are getting at. I'm an engineer with little study of QM over ~50 years ago in grad school. If you had condescended to read what was suggested regarding MBT and QM in my earlier post, you might have found your answer. You might consider asking Tom Campbell your question for his next 'Fireside Chat' question and answer session. They are always looking for interesting questions there. Here is the link to the last question asked in that thread and you can post your question immediately behind it. I suggest that you not be so coy about claiming what ever knowledge and training that you have so that Tom can address his answer to you at that level. https://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewt ... 24#p101824

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
So an intriguing issue may be how a mathematical possibility can interact as a wave with a virtually manifested double slit.
I'm not sure I understand your question entirely but I believe that Tom has said that the logic is what matters. The logic of the situation determines the information that you get. There are no physical particles. those particles are represented as probability distributions(diffraction pattern) when the which way information is not known. When the which way information is available then the probability distribution collapses into a definite point.

Things to remember

-We live in a virtual reality composed of information. (An information system)
-there are no such things as particles until the measurement is made
-it is the availability of the which way information that determines difraction pattern or two bar pattern
-it is the asking for the data(measurement) and its availability which manifests its existence as a physical particle
-the set up(logic) of the experiment determines the answer, it does not matter if the double slit is physical or not. Ultimately nothing is physical. The experiment is just the physical setup that allows the question to be asked and results noted.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 pm
Posts: 14
brian_6_1 wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:49 am
Tom discussed one aspect of your question in a recent fireside chat. He has given some thought on this, and bottom line, doesn't have a direct answer. i seem to recall three possibilities - one it is rule set, but if i recall correctly, this seems unlikely. If it was rule set, it could just render the electron without it passing through a detection process, and never present the situation in which the diffraction appears. (Everyone would be happy in the material world view.)

The second was, given the above, it could be glitch. Some remnant that the larger system didn't anticipate or expect us to pass electrons through slits one at a time, and once the diffraction pattern was shown, it had to be consistent with the glitch.

The third, (and if i recall, Tom's more preferred) was it was left on purpose (perhaps possibly part of the anthropic principle). Tom hypothesizes that leaving this breadcrumb that messes with physical principles of matter would leave an unknown that would lead our culture to question our understandings of the nature of reality. (in which case, mission accomplished.)

(If the third is true, then your subquestion about manifestation is more a cause and effect, and not fundamental).

Hope this helps...

~brian
Thank you Brian for that answer. I like the reasoning why it couldn't be the ruleset. And a glitch that had to be continuated after it happened, creative, but it feels like the kind of answer that you use for want of a better one. :-). So the third, the breadcrumb, that is a tempting one, but on the other hand seems to make it all a kind of game. You've got to help them a little, otherwise they'll never find out. Like children getting hints while looking for hidden easter eggs.

I like that one too, it is a good thing to think of reality as being playfull with some game elements. So what could be the fourth possibility? If Tom doesn't know we don't have to ask Ted, because he only discusses what Tom teaches. (No offence meant Ted, I respect you, but you tend to be so serious that you make me want to joke about it. :-)

The fourth option, which is not really an answer, is that it only makes sense on a deeper level of understanding. I'll have to ponder about that one. I wrote a whole series of sentences here that I erased again, the picture is not ripe yet. It's coming. When I can find the right words I'll be back on this topic.

Thank you Brian, very helpful!


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:49 pm
Posts: 14
Ted Vollers wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am gmeerstadt,

Actually this board is not here to engage in speculation. There is a 'Chat' forum for that. This board is here to maintain clear statements of what Tom Campbell teaches. Extensions of MBT would be welcome but so far the only person who has done that, other than Tom Campbell is myself, frequently in collaboration with Tom Campbell. I will re read this thread to see if there is any indication that you do understand what Tom teaches versus it being worth while to actually have you read the suggested information.

I will also attempt to see if there is a known answer to your question, presuming that I can clearly understand you.

I have read the thread and still do not clearly understand what you are getting at. I'm an engineer with little study of QM over ~50 years ago in grad school. If you had condescended to read what was suggested regarding MBT and QM in my earlier post, you might have found your answer. You might consider asking Tom Campbell your question for his next 'Fireside Chat' question and answer session. They are always looking for interesting questions there. Here is the link to the last question asked in that thread and you can post your question immediately behind it. I suggest that you not be so coy about claiming what ever knowledge and training that you have so that Tom can address his answer to you at that level. https://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewt ... 24#p101824

Ted
Ted, thank you, I really appreciate your sincere answer, but we both see things from a different point of view here. One could define science as a continuous loop of investigation and speculation. Without speculation there is no progress, except by devine revelation, but I guess that would be even less acceptable to you than speculation. And if this board would really be about clear statements of what Tom teaches, you would really not do right to the man. If you have access to him, ask him. That would be terrible if people only think in terms of what you have taught them. Tom could never have gained the insights he has if he would have adhered to that principle.

The best thing that could happen to Tom is that he communicates his insights so clearly that his readers, after digesting the information, stand on the same platform of knowledge and insight as he does. Together they can work with these insights and discover much more then one man could do. I am pretty sure that is what Tom is hoping for as the result of his publications. Your own progress only starts when the knowledge has become your own. You cannot grow on referred knowledge.

And it is okay if you do not clearly understand what I am getting at. I'm just speculating, which you don't want to do in this place. And I have no other credentials for doing so than an investigative mind. I ask questions and am curious for answers, especially for answers that I can not yet find in what I've read. These are the kind of answers that come up during the interaction of people exchanging information in an informal way. You should try it. The answer that Brian gave to my question was very informative and imediately sparked my own process in getting closer to the answer.

I've only been in this forum for two days now and I already respect you and like you Ted, but you are so serious in your answers, almost careful not to give an opinion, but only facts, that you sometimes make me laugh about it in a good hearted manner. Remember, in the end it is all about becoming love, and you help me with that! :-)


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
gmeerstadt,

You are welcome to your own attitude, as long as you do not interfere with the purpose of the board. However we once let the board go that way when it was much younger and then Tom decided that the board needed to be tightened up and so advised me of what he wanted changed. Otherwise it would not be a reference into the future as is planned and anticipated. I don't work for you or on the basis of your opinions. I do what Tom Campbell wants to be done. That is actually the only specific direction that he has given for the board in all these years. You might read in the first forum on the Index page where some of these things are discussed, presuming that you are willing to do so. We do innovate here on the board as Tom expands his thinking or I come up with an expansion which I work out with and consult about with Tom. Anyone else who had a carefully worked out expansion and discussed it with Tom Campbell for his approval would be welcome to post it here on the board as an expansion of MBT theory. But Tom Campbell makes that decision.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
WHY! Aaah, yes, why, who knows? The best answer is no answer at all. Why is it like this? I wish I knew...why is the only question and there is no answer. Why? The answer is, because. And So What. Who knows? Why?


Top
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
This is not the first such question. Previously there was the question of what came before the Void (we don't know) but that was not sufficient. There was the insistence that there must have been something before the Void as 'logically' necessary. There cannot be a now unless there was a before now and what was there before? There must have, by [his] logic, been something. Like the infinite stack of tortoises of the ancients on which the flat earth was supported as an infinite regression. Each tortoise must absolutely have something to stand on. That was only resolved by banning that board member or to turn the whole board over to him.

Like some now will say, and insist, what exists between one delta T and the next delta T of the reality cells of the LCS? It's a digital reality which exists as those sequential states delta T1, delta T2, and so forth. It is not a continuum but a digital reality so there is nothing defined 'between' one delta T and the next.

Perhaps this is not that kind of situation that is just a glitch in thinking. Now I will not get into an argument about this question as I refuse to try to figure out the answer. It is not my field and my kind of question. Ask Tom Campbell. He is the quantum physicist here.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:31 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
It is not a continuum but a digital reality so there is nothing defined 'between' one delta T and the next.
That is one aspect that I find requires a major adjustment to thinking. Glitch is a appropriate characterization. Acceptance of uncertainty is the only tool I can think of that works in a digital reality.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
gmeerstadt: "Before an electron has been detected there is no electron, there is a probability wave function of the electron showing up at any point of measurement. If we do not measure at the slits, but only at the screen behind the slits we will see a defraction pattern. So this means the wave fiunction of posibility has interacted with the slits as if it were a wave of energy in the same realm as the slits. We might just as well imagine that there is no interaction at all between a possibility and an opbject like the plate with 2 slits.

So is this 'just the rule set' or is there something more to say about this interaction between something non manifest (the probability) and something manifest (the slits)?"

Tom: There is no interaction between the probability distribution of the possibilities and the "physical" slits. The slits and the rest of the experimental apparatus simply define the logic of the experiment (according to the rule-set) and the result of that logic combined with the needs and intentions of the LCS places the required result on the screen. The overriding need of the system in this case is to maintain a consistent interface between wave and particle viewpoints. You can find a detailed discussion of this in a talk I gave in Atlanta a year or two ago (YouTube).....also a shorter discussion can be found in the MBT-LA video produced in Oct 2016 in LA CA.

Tom


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited