Return Home
It is currently Sat May 18, 2024 12:45 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 58 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
Man wrote: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.
The photons don't really disappear or reappear. They create different results depending on what information is present and accessible. When shot one at a time, each photon lands on the screen based on probability (example: http://youtu.be/B9xM2_MrC2k?t=2m56s). The photons do not land in the troughs at all. The light does not really vanish or go through anything. The photons just don't land there. The result is, in essence, a probability distribution. The photons fill in the area of the diffraction pattern one at a time. That, in and of itself, is mind blowing.

It is logical to assume that there is some undiscovered medium through which the light waves must travel. That would be in-line with an objective reality view... the concept being that something has to exist for the wave to travel through. In terms of this likely being a virtual and digital reality though, no such medium needs to exist. What or where is the medium when the photons travel as particles when the "which-slit" measurement is taken?
Man wrote: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.
There is no logical explanation for QM in an objective reality. However, in a digital and virtual reality, QM and relativity both tend to make sense.

That is my limited understanding anyway.

For those interested, here is a supposed, at-home quantum erasure set up:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slide ... tum-eraser

It doesn't really seem like the polarizing filters substitute a "which slit" measurement when particles are fired one at at time, but I ordered the items anyway to play around.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Last edited by Justin on Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1599
Location: Lincoln, NE
Seems to read, one needs to subscribe. Shucks !


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:11 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
RBM wrote:Seems to read, one needs to subscribe. Shucks !
I was only looking at the text on the series of images that show the set up. There is this page as well that has some useful info (though still not the full article it seems):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tum-eraser

I ordered a polarizing filter to play around with this set up. I'll let you know how it goes.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 am
Posts: 366
Justin wrote:The photons fill in the area of the diffraction pattern one at a time. That, in and of itself, is mind blowing.

It is logical to assume that there is some undiscovered medium through which the light waves must travel. That would be in-line with an objective reality view...
Here is an explanation that I think would work in objective reality: what if "our world" has something similar to a band-pass filter that prevents wave-snippets of light shorter than a "photon" from being visible?

So when we "chop" the wave-form into bits shorter than a wave-length, it starts to appear as discreet points - maybe the wave-tops shine through? - while still moving in accordance with wave mechanics, because the rest of the wave would be "under the surface".

What we see as "photons" might be the the wave-tops, but it is for someone else to test out.

The problem with MBT is that, if people had discovered it in 1750 and everyone believed in it, we would still be on horse, carriage and candle light. We can not accept "god invents the results according to statistics without explanation" as an answer to all mysteries.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
I've been reading along for quite some time.
Very interesting, deep, loving and eloquent discussions was what I found and enjoyed.
I'll try my current best in my first post here :)

Hopefully I don't miss the point...


My current understanding is this:

there are no waves - nor are there particles.

Those are both just names we gave to observable phenomena with certain characteristics.

We call it a particle when we observe behaviour like we are used to from matter in our everyday world
- like billard balls.
We call it a wave when we observe behaviour like we are used to from matter in our everyday world
- like water waves.
We build our description upon what we can observe.
It is just a description of observed behaviour though - not a description of a THING quite yet.
Because there may be no THING - and probably isn't.
To infer the reality of matter - or of waves, which need some kind of matter for them to exist and propagate - from observable phenomena in our world is circular reasoning.

What ever more closely observation can reveal however, is the fact of certain behaviour of phenomena.
From there we can go - and infer from that.

Not the reality of matter or waves (or photons...)
But the reality and nature of the rules describing behaviour/phenomena.

Those rules are describable by math.
The math can describe it all perfectly.

It may (and does) not make sense with the proposition of material reality.
Why should it, if and when the proposition upon which interpretation is attempted is flawed?
In that case it is even: "it can't!" instead of "why should it?"
Drop the proposition and look.
...notions of backwards causality and other problems with assimilating the results of quantum eraser experiments seem to come from here...

We still have to use names for phenomena like "particle" or "wave" or "photon".
But we can know that those are just vehicles for us to be able to talk about phenomena instead of real material THINGS in a real material world.

It can make sense - just not with the current proposition...
Enter MBT - for one very good example.

Another similar angle of view is presented at bottomlayer.com - a site that Tom referenced in another thread on the delayed choice quantum eraser.
...highly recommended reading!

All the best!


Top
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
Great first post Jonathan. Welcome.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:06 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Hi Jonathan and like Justin says welcome to Tom's MBT discussion forums.

That's pretty much it that everything is a metaphor except for Consciousness except that it, the word or metaphor Consciousness, is also a metaphor for what is fundamental which is information, nonphysical digital information as a system we are all bits of. Words as metaphor...
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
In the Calgary workshop Saturday lecture (see YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/twcjr44?feature ), I introduced a new slide showing a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment published in 2000. This was a particularly elegant experiment since the experimental process never interacts with "touches" any of the particles whose behavior is being measured. A question about this experiment was asked and I thought this thread would be a good place to share the answer. It may be helpful to rewatch that part of the Calgary video on YouTube and/or look at a copy of that slide (slides are available at www. MyBigTOE.com).

Question:
“how [do] you explain the fact that the photon hitting the control sensor D0 at the top can know in advance which of the sensors D1 to D4 its entangled partner photon will strike.”

Answer:
Only in an objective world would it have to know in advance. In the "real" world (i.e., the probabilistic virtual one) the result at D0 remains indeterminate until the data at D1 through D4 is collected. (the result at D0 cannot yet have a fixed result in PMR because no measurement [information] has yet been made [produced] to specify which fixed result it must occur to insure no inconsistency of information within PMR) -- that is, until measurements are made that specify the “which-way” information [ 1) slit A, 2) slit B, and 3) no information].

Case 1) and 2): detector information specifying a photon at a specific slit is created and made available within PMR). In other words: Whenever the data/information collected at D1 - D4 determines a particle (photon) has passed through a particular slit, then the indeterminate probabilistic result at D0 collapses to (manifests) a particle associated with (behind) that particular slit.

Case 3): When D1-D4 produces no "which-way" information (which way did the particle go, A, B, or neither) then there is no information available in PMR to indicate the existence of a particle/photon, thus, the indeterminate probabilistic result at D0 reflects the unperturbed natural state of all potential existence -- that is, it manifests the result of a potential-particle probability distribution rather than a physical particle as it moves beyond the slits, and does not collapse to a particle until it hits the final screen where a measurement is first taken. It then distributes itself one particle at a time in a diffraction pattern according to the probability given by the probability wave function. The potential particle has remained probability until its measurement at the final collection screen. The accumulated particles on the screen are distributed according to the interference pattern of potential particle probability waves. In other words, the potential-particle probability must act like interfering waves because the double slits create two different sources of potential-particle probability, thus producing an interference pattern of particle probability at the screen. When particles are manifested (collapsed into particles) at the measurement screen, they must (according to the rule-set) be distributed according to the probability of their existence at any particular point on the screen.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:54 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
is it further true to say, perhaps obviously, that all of this remains uncollapsed and unrendered until a consciousness actually looks at the data?

If someone looks at the which-way data, bringing the particle observation into PMR memory, then burns the data, the wave interference pattern remains broken?

If that person dies suddenly, the data has been taken out of OS, and the wave interference is resurrected?

what if an NPMR entity in our OS looks at the data, someone who communicates with a PMR FWAU?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
k: "is it also true to say, all of this remains uncollapsed and unrendered until a consciousness looks at the data?"

Tom: A consciousness looking at the data is not important literally. "a consciousness looks at the data" is a metaphor for a person taking a measurement and thus creating available information within PMR.

k: If someone looks at the which slit data, bringing it into memory, then burns the data, the interference remains broken.

Tom: Assuming nobody has looked at the screen data. You bring up a grey area. It would depend on whether or not that "someone's memory" was knowledgeable and credible enough to be considered "available information within PMR". If that someone was the lab janitor, I suspect the interference pattern would return since memory is not generally AVAILABLE information (subjective information is personal rather than generally available to others within PMR) and additionally, a janitors ability to interpret the data produces low credibility -- opinion rather than fact. If it were all 10 physicists who did the experiment who looked at the data, I suspect "the interference remains broken" is the correct answer but I am not 100% sure, it wholly depends on what the system defines as "available information within PMR". In other words, the system is trying to avoid a conflict of information. It cannot allow two valid objective available sources of information to contradict each other. Memory is not objective but 10 independent professional affidavits are pretty close to objective information -- so how picky is the LCS in defining "available information within PMR"? How weak (low credibility) can a contradiction be before it no longer counts as a contradiction. The answer may depend on the probability of what happens next (the probable consequences of the contradiction within PMR). I do not know of any experiments that have explored this point.

k: If that person dies suddenly, the data has been taken out of OS, and the interference is resurrected?

Tom: Yes certainly, under that condition there is zero probability of any informational contradiction creating a problem in PMR

k: what if an NPMR entity in our OS looks at the data?

Tom: it matters not. The issue is not allowing objective contradictions in PMR.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Could you design a room, where qualified observers may enter and observe the which slit data, and then not observe, which would toggle the interference between the on/off condition in real time to a separate observer who could see the screen and the observers observing, while not directly observing the which slit himself.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:24 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 684
Location: Florida
kroeran wrote:Could you design a room, where qualified observers may enter and observe the which slit data, and then not observe, which would toggle the interference between the on/off condition in real time to a separate observer who could see the screen and the observers observing, while not directly observing the which slit himself.


This has now been done,but 'nonlocally'. Links have been posted here several times about it but there's been little to no interest about the findings apparently:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6712

(I know this question was directed at Tom but I think the results above are relevant and important to discussion at this site.)

About which path data,and recordings:
I don't pretent to be a physicist, but from what I've read and think I understand well enough,the rules that allow us to access which path data from the slits should also apply to the results on a photographic plate should they not?After an experiment is finished the screen's which path data should be consistently available as would have been the recording if one had chose to 'look'. In MBT terms,shouldn't the fact that the slit detectors were on then be in the actualized history data base,along with the screens 'particle-like' result in order to maintain consistency ? If the slit detectors were on,it really happened.

Please note:
I'm not trying to argue here,I honestly feel that it would be contradictory and inconsistent if an interference pattern were to return if a slit recording were to be destroyed before being looked at.I'm not challenging the 'available data' thing ,I just believe that the 'which path data' would still be available to a PMR observer because the quantum states would have been 'collapsed' in the historical past and reflected as such on the screen.Why would TBC go out of it's way to change the pattern to one of an interference and risk violating consistency ?

Here's a link that I think demonstrates how a slit detector in fact constrains the data available at a photographic plate:
"

The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 055013.htm


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:59 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

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

Not attempting to go into the details of your post. The Big Computer 'knows' what exists, what information is available, within PMR as that is the only 'place' where it does exist, other than as it is rendered and passed over the RWW to participating IUOCs. So TBC never has any problem 'knowing' and thus maintaining what information exists effectively within PMR. That information will be consistently maintained whatever the contorted details created in an experimental setup. That is the principle that MBT applies, in my understanding. That has been the principle that I have tried to get across, staying away from the more complex experimental setups as not of interest to me, once I do understand that principle. As Tom has said in some of the posts quoted here, there can be ambiguous situations and the response seems to be to go with what might be seen as common sense. Thus information within the minds of experimental physicists from their experimental observations would outweigh the vague and passing notice of the janitor sweeping the lab floor. But I have not seen where the principle does not apply. As you say, not to be argumentative, but trying to get that understood as a principle that can then be applied to all of these situations.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:01 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:35 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Jeff wrote:... the rules that allow us to access which path data from the slits should also apply to the results on a photographic plate should they not? ...
A photographic plate would show the sum of all the "particles" that hit it.
The statistical distribution of many particles.
Even if you had data on each single one photon (which path info, gathered at the slits), it would be impossible to relate which one photon caused which one dot from such a plate.
The which path info would be there, but useless.
Interference would be the result I'd expect.
OTOH - the gathered data would suggest a particle-like result on the plate.
Now that I think of it, this is more likely.
addition an hour later:
and also the predicted outcome
(Sorry to have caused confusion! It only became clear while and after writing.)
Jeff wrote:... Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior."
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 055013.htm
Not sure how they did the experiment which is summarized as:
quote from the article:
In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.
to me it seems: eighter you know, or you dont.
How did they manage to go in between knowing and not knowing?

ps:
In your last post you promised a link, but ist not there...


Last edited by Jonathan on Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:36 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Jeff wrote:
This has now been done,but 'nonlocally'. Links have been posted here several times about it but there's been little to no interest about the findings apparently:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6712
nice
Jeff wrote: (I know this question was directed at Tom but I think the results above are relevant and important to discussion at this site.)
as you appear to be Mr. Double Slit around here, your assistance is very much valued!
Jeff wrote: About which path data,and recordings:
I don't pretent to be a physicist,
this creates several openings

1) well, I do pretend to be a physicist, but I don't know where to buy a labcoat
2) I am not a physicist, but I do play one on television
3) I think my wife pretends that I am a physicist...in a role play sort of way...if you get my meaning
; - )
Jeff wrote:but from what I've read and think I understand well enough,the rules that allow us to access which path data from the slits should also apply to the results on a photographic plate should they not?
so we have data at the slit (mechanical measurement, interaction by consciousness), data at the plate (mechanical measurement, interaction by consciousness), ok
Jeff wrote:After an experiment is finished the screen's which path data should be consistently available as would have been the recording if one had chose to 'look'.
I am not clear on the meaning of "the screen's which path data". I understand there is which path data at the slit, and there is interference(wave)/non-interference(particle) data at the screen, which we could call "interference" data, for short

I think we have to be clear in our language regarding mechanical measurement and recording, which contains the potential for conciousness to see the data, vs a consciousness (persistent within the PMR - not since deceased) observing the data

and that nothing actually happens until a consciousness engages the scenario - all of the probabilities play out, at the moment consciousness engages...the system's decision tree does not unfold linearly in the absence of interaction with conciousness
Jeff wrote:In MBT terms,shouldn't the fact that the slit detectors were on then be in the actualized history data base,along with the screens 'particle-like' result in order to maintain consistency ?
as above, nothing actualizes until a conciousness enters the scenario

and the data must be recorded for the potential for interaction with conciousness to be there
Jeff wrote: If the slit detectors were on,it really happened.
again, nothing actually "happens", no big computer calculations are made for actualization, until an actor enters the stage
Jeff wrote:Please note:
I'm not trying to argue here,I honestly feel that it would be contradictory and inconsistent if an interference pattern were to return if a slit recording were to be destroyed before being looked at.
again, the big computer is just wait'in around for someone to show up and render some crap, otherwise its all just probability distributions, unactualized
Jeff wrote: I'm not challenging the 'available data' thing ,I just believe that the 'which path data' would still be available to a PMR observer because the quantum states would have been 'collapsed' in the historical past and reflected as such on the screen.
as above, there is no historical past, if no-one was looking, it remains in the probable unactualized "future" until someone shows up, then the whole thing plays out depending on conditions at that moment
Jeff wrote: Why would TBC go out of it's way to change the pattern to one of an interference and risk violating consistency ?
the pattern is not changed - the pattern remained an open question, until actualized by conciousness engaging
Jeff wrote: Here's a link that I think demonstrates how a slit detector in fact constrains the data available at a photographic plate:
"

The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 055013.htm
nice - what I see here is a tool that iterates on a continuum from non-observation of which-slit toward observation of which-slit, testing and demonstrating the systems sensitivity algorithm.

It is actualized (collapsed) in real time according to the amount of interaction with conciousness during the experiment. Watching it in real time should yield a different result than letting it unfold unobserved, then looking at the data after the fact.

preface everything that I say with "I think..."

great discussion.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


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

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 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

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