Return Home
It is currently Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:33 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 58 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
so, you measure light as discrete photons at the slit and the diffraction pattern or lack thereof at the screen 100 times, put the results in slit and screen pairs of envelopes stapled together, then divide the 100 envelop pairs into 2 piles of 50, wait a week, then burn the slit photon measurement envelop of one pile of 50, retaining the screen measurement, observe that the 50 screen observations with burned slit observations created a diffraction pattern, and the others did not.

Have I got this right?

so it's the VR having light behave as a particle when observed as such, and as a wave when not observed in this photon by photon way, but rather observed as organic light with the naked eye, trying to maintain the PMR ruleset, driven by the potential act of consciousness receiving the data.

somehow, this experiment seems to reach beyond the systems capacity to track things, otherwise, why does the system not know that it is being hacked in this way?

we all know that the light was passing through photon by photon, so why does the system not record that and destroy the diffraction for all 100 experiments?

is it possible that double slit photon measuring is a problem the system simply cannot resolve, revealing it's VR nature?

when observed by the naked eye as light, and when at the same time measured but erased, the system defaults to the former given the uncertainty introduced by erasure?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:54 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
we all know that the light was passing through photon by photon, so why does the system not record that and destroy the diffraction for all 100 experiments?
Randy, I suspect your various question marks are rhetorical, but some amplification might help new readers:

Crucially, in the subset where the slit data has been destroyed, there is no PMR record of which of the two slits the photons passed through, therefore the screen result has to default to the uncertainty of the interference pattern, as your post acknowledges. The simple knowledge that single photons were originally passed through one or the other (which of course is recorded by the system) does nothing to resolve the uncertainty of which slit each passed through, i.e. their spatial position. The inability of human observation to see anything but "organic light" (probably not even that, in an actual experimental set-up) is overridden (as the system sees it) by the technology which is able to send discrete photons at the slits. All is well!

Arthur

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


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:41 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Quote:
we all know that the light was passing through photon by photon, so why does the system not record that and destroy the diffraction for all 100 experiments?
Randy, I suspect your various question marks are rhetorical, but some amplification might help new readers:

Crucially, in the subset where the slit data has been destroyed, there is no PMR record of which of the two slits the photons passed through, therefore the screen result has to default to the uncertainty of the interference pattern, as your post acknowledges. The simple knowledge that single photons were originally passed through one or the other (which of course is recorded by the system) does nothing to resolve the uncertainty of which slit each passed through, i.e. their spatial position. The inability of human observation to see anything but "organic light" (probably not even that, in an actual experimental set-up) is overridden (as the system sees it) by the technology which is able to send discrete photons at the slits. All is well!

Arthur
And Bob's your uncle. ;)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

I would say that it comes down to the fractal nature of our reality as created by TBC and its VRRE aspect. When a fractal level cannot be observed by the observers present, it is not included in the data stream that creates the PMR VR experience of those particular observers. So if it is daylight and the stars, which are still present in the sky, cannot be seen, they are simply not created within the data stream that creates the VR experience as a fractal level which is presently not accessible to you. Why waste the calculation capacity. The moon, if it is early enough in the day or late enough in the evening, is sometimes bright enough to still be displayed so it is so displayed even while the rising or setting sun are in the sky. If you are just walking along and look down at a roadside ditch, you cannot observe the microscopic critters within the water so what you see is dirty water. TBC does not include via the VRRE those microscopic creatures within your data stream. In this same way, TBC/VRRE does not display a diffraction pattern when you have a means to observe beyond that level. If you cannot so observe this lower fractal level of QM because you are not actively using an instrument that can force the display of such a fractal level, you get a diffraction pattern based upon waves instead of particles. As Tom has described it, the fancier experiments based upon destroying information created earlier and looking at the resulting paradoxes comes down to a display as the result of the presence of information within the PMR VR. Lacking information at the QM level, you get a diffraction pattern, regardless of whether you once had such information and ignored or discarded it. What matters is whether you have that information now at the time of observation. Hopefully I have stated all this correctly.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
Randy,

I would say that it comes down to the fractal nature of our reality as created by TBC and its VRRE aspect. When a fractal level cannot be observed by the observers present, it is not included in the data stream that creates the PMR VR experience of those particular observers. So if it is daylight and the stars, which are still present in the sky, cannot be seen, they are simply not created within the data stream that creates the VR experience as a fractal level which is presently not accessible to you. Why waste the calculation capacity. The moon, if it is early enough in the day or late enough in the evening, is sometimes bright enough to still be displayed so it is so displayed even while the rising or setting sun are in the sky. If you are just walking along and look down at a roadside ditch, you cannot observe the microscopic critters within the water so what you see is dirty water. TBC does not include via the VRRE those microscopic creatures within your data stream. In this same way, TBC/VRRE does not display a diffraction pattern when you have a means to observe beyond that level. If you cannot so observe this lower fractal level of QM because you are not actively using an instrument that can force the display of such a fractal level, you get a diffraction pattern based upon waves instead of particles. As Tom has described it, the fancier experiments based upon destroying information created earlier and looking at the resulting paradoxes comes down to a display as the result of the presence of information within the PMR VR. Lacking information at the QM level, you get a diffraction pattern, regardless of whether you once had such information and ignored or discarded it. What matters is whether you have that information now at the time of observation. Hopefully I have stated all this correctly.

Ted
the walking beside the ditch thing was very helpful pedagogically, but at the same time, poetic!

does "fractal" howyou are using it = rendered?....or =engaged by a conciousness? or sort of both

such that "fractal level" is "rendered level"

I can't figure out "QM"...I get its meaning by context...but can't parse out the Q and the M

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
Quote:
we all know that the light was passing through photon by photon, so why does the system not record that and destroy the diffraction for all 100 experiments?
Randy, I suspect your various question marks are rhetorical, but some amplification might help new readers:

Crucially, in the subset where the slit data has been destroyed, there is no PMR record of which of the two slits the photons passed through, therefore the screen result has to default to the uncertainty of the interference pattern, as your post acknowledges. The simple knowledge that single photons were originally passed through one or the other (which of course is recorded by the system) does nothing to resolve the uncertainty of which slit each passed through, i.e. their spatial position. The inability of human observation to see anything but "organic light" (probably not even that, in an actual experimental set-up) is overridden (as the system sees it) by the technology which is able to send discrete photons at the slits. All is well!

Arthur
no, not rhetorical...as the double slit quantum eraser is the essential proof of the virtual nature of reality and the key role of consciousness rendering PMR, I want to deeply understand it so that I can use it when making the argument for TOEish thinking.

I don't fully understand the difference between knowledge of the single photon source and knowledge of which slit it went through.

Is it because the uncertainty regarding which slit it went through has not been collapsed by conciousness perceiving it...it does not have the input data by which to determine which of the two (non-interfering) screen splotches to render it too?


If the PMR simulation were more perfect at concealing its true nature, shouldn't it render non-interference as soon as we are aware of the partical nature of light, i.e. synthesizing a source slit choice and measurement for each photon?



other issues;
have I got this right...all particals moving from a source through two slits of any kind, display interference...its just that this is where we can measure it?

does non interference take less computing power than displaying interference? is interference the system "at ease", in uncollapsed uncertainty?

why this toggling of states?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Fractals is how Tom defines the way the PMR VRs are calculated and displayed in levels based upon our ability to comprehend them. Whatever comes to us in our data stream that defines our PMR experience is considered to have been rendered based upon the usage of that word in engineering and architecture. Fractals are a way of describing things at multiple levels that are the result of the reiteration of a simple set of rules. There is a large literature showing how the spacing of trees in a forest can be described fractally, how the coastline can be described fractally and many other applications of fractals as well. Tom says that it is also characteristic of aspects of the organization within AUM of the various groupings of NPMRs and PMRs.

QM has so often been used as an acronym for Quantum Mechanics here on the board that I did not think of it perhaps not being clear to everyone.

All for now. I think your other answers are coming from a better source than I would be.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:54 pm
Posts: 104
Location: Toronto, Ontario
There is the portion of the Double Slit experiment that Tom talks about regarding the destruction of the "data" and how that would then return the results to an interference pattern. Has this been tested before?

If someone took the data and the datascreen... and put them away in such a way that neither were ever seen by a consciousness, then you viewed just the datascreen first, you would see the interference pattern, correct? What would happen if you then viewed the data? Obviously the screen couldn't destroy the interference pattern because it's now already in this reality.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

_________________
http://unlimitedboundaries.ca/


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:48 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
There is the portion of the Double Slit experiment that Tom talks about regarding the destruction of the "data" and how that would then return the results to an interference pattern. Has this been tested before?

If someone took the data and the datascreen... and put them away in such a way that neither were ever seen by a consciousness, then you viewed just the datascreen first, you would see the interference pattern, correct? What would happen if you then viewed the data? Obviously the screen couldn't destroy the interference pattern because it's now already in this reality.

Am I interpreting this correctly?
my understanding is that light tries to look like a wave (with interference) as long as it is being perceived by a consciousness in this way, and if a consciousness measures it as a particle (at the slit), it changes its appearance to behave like a particle (no interference pattern)

so, the deal is, as long as there is the potential to view the slit data by a conciousness, it retains the particle behavior - the potential to view the slit data has to removed from PMR (destroyed), for it (the coding datastream) to return to "at ease", its default "light wave" mode

I think thats how it goes - this is the evidence that this is a VR, and the big computer is just "making it up" as it goes along, according to a specific ruleset, and indeed, the big computer does destroy the particle non-pattern, after-the-fact

this is established science and is a real head scratcher for physicists - well, not for one

your entire life experience is being rendered to your consiousness as it is needed, like a video game - this is not MBTOE, this is established, slightly fringe physics, but Tom is not alone in this

you may wish to read up on the quantum erasure on wikipedia

[If you hear of any activity related to phasing up the road from you in Ottawa, please let me know.]

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Last edited by kroeran on Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Tom created a number of files of lectures that he prepared, some for the purpose and some taken from the board, which he has as handouts for people coming to his various events. Taking the lectures as grouped apart, they are now on the Wiki by subject, although not fully complete as yet. Here is one you might find pertinent to this question.
OOBE – Psi Uncertainty, Backward Causation and Simultaneity
http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/OO ... multaneity

From that link you can backtrack to the whole list and may see another of interest there.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:48 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:54 pm
Posts: 104
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Sweet, thanks Ted. And kroeran. :)

_________________
http://unlimitedboundaries.ca/


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:57 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 am
Posts: 366
Quote:
somehow, this experiment seems to reach beyond the systems capacity to track things, otherwise, why does the system not know that it is being hacked in this way?
My reaction to this is, that Tom's description of "the system" is probably not accurate, though many of the ideas might be valid. It doesn't seem to me that this is more "hacking" than the diffraction pattern itself, which isn't "supposed" to be revealed as it "breaks belief" in the world.

Where does light go in the "troughs"? It disappears, but when you move the screen it appears again. When you stand in a trough, it is impossible to know light is "going through" you.

There are similar quantum mysteries with light involving polaroid filters.
Quote:
Why waste the calculation capacity.
The notion of "calculation capacity" rings untrue to me, as well. The way rendering works in video games seems similar to this, but there is not enough information about this to say what is actually occurring.

There are so many things that seem to be wastes of "calculation capacity", and if it were scarce, evolution would have developed some sort of reward/penalty for it.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:21 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3435
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
My reaction to this is, that Tom's description of "the system" is probably not accurate, though many of the ideas might be valid. It doesn't seem to me that this is more "hacking" than the diffraction pattern itself, which isn't "supposed" to be revealed as it "breaks belief" in the world.

Where does light go in the "troughs"? It disappears, but when you move the screen it appears again. When you stand in a trough, it is impossible to know light is "going through" you.

There are similar quantum mysteries with light involving polaroid filters.
I was thinking of hacking as along the lines of using a technology in an "off label" application, digging below the granularity of the specs, and that the system seems to not be able to hide itself, or more likely, leaves this jewel there to be found, with intention

in small physics speak, the two apparent wave forms pass through each other, and half the time they are partially or fully cancelling each other out, and half the time they are combining with each other - curiously...I actually did the interference experiment with water through 2 slits in high school physics

of course, there is no opportunity to apply the quantum eraser here... as a water wave is really a wave

so, a darkness trough is just one wave up and one wave down, at the same point, adding to zero (darkness), creating the appearance of energy flowing through an unknown medium, just like a water wave

at a certain point of fine granularity, we start to see this apparent light wave at the particle level, so the big computer switches the scenario for conciousness perceiving particle behavior - like ordering a sandwich at a deli..."is that a number 32 or 46 Jerry?" or a set change between acts in a play

--
perhaps I am overreacting, but part of the local ruleset, which Ted enforces, is that we do not insult Ted or Tom unnecessarily. Saying Tom's model is not likely true, will likely attract uncomfortable attention, and this would be remedied by being more specific.

most likely, you are reacting to my poor representation of the model in this regard...and might have a different impression from spending more time with source works

as open scepticism is paramount, such a blanket statement without focused and detailed argumentation will likely be dismissed as unhelpful, or attract an uncomfortable Ted probing, which often leads to ejection, depending on how you respond.

In the past, Ted has been quite strict in this regard, especially regarding how we speak of Tom in his forum house.

This is not guru worship, just focused professionalism.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Last edited by kroeran on Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Tom's bottom line explanation as to how to understand the origin of the various anomalies that arise in Quantum Mechanics or otherwise is to consider the following.

Occurrences to provide information for an 'observation' are based upon probabilities, no matter what kind of occurrence you refer to at what fractal level of PMR. This results in diffraction patterns with a double slit apparatus.

If information enters the PMR VR in the sense of 'the particle went through this slit' or 'a tree fell in the woods', that information is maintained as consistency of the PMR reality as long as that information remains within the PMR VR. i.e. as long as the observer does not loose or destroy the information or forget or 'die', in some way removing the information from the PMR VR. This results in a discrete pattern with a double slit apparatus.

If the information leading to a given observation, resulting in a specific occurrence brought out of the probability realm, is in fact lost or destroyed in some way, then the observation upon repetition is taken from the probability realm rather than being fixed by consistency. This leads to the examples of how many beers in the fridge, is there a tree with blue coloring on its leaves, is there a diffraction pattern or a 'spot' pattern.

Questions of reverse causality can be looked at in terms of whether information was in an unknown category, thus subject to modification by Intent, and thus if modified perhaps giving the superficial impression of modifying the past.

These approaches by Tom have resolved all of these questions. It is a matter of following the information.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:48 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 am
Posts: 366
Quote:
so, a darkness trough is just one wave up and one wave down, at the same point, adding to zero (darkness), creating the appearance of energy flowing through an unknown medium, just like a water wave
If it were a wave that travels, then it must travel through an unknown medium, because in the "troughs" it is undetectable.

I would like to think that it is something else entirely, and that a real physics explanation, possible involving the hitherto "unknown medium", is possible.
Quote:
Occurrences to provide information for an 'observation' are based upon probabilities, no matter what kind of occurrence you refer to at what fractal level of PMR. This results in diffraction patterns with a double slit apparatus.
Probability is not an "explanation" in the sense that explains what happens, but I accept that it makes sense and it seems mainstream science accepts that there is yet no explanation for quantum mechanics/quantum probability.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 58 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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