Jump to content

Neoholographic

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About Neoholographic

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum Mechanics

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not talking about the clustering of information that might give you a pretty mountanside or a snowflake. I'm talking about the encoding of information in the sequence of a storage medium and building the machinery to decode the information encoded in it's sequence. You even have information encoded into non coding sequences that regulate the expression of coding sequences. This is impossible to occur naturally. That's why I asked to give me the steps. If I say If if you walk into the house and see 3 pairs of shoes then meet me at Outback on Miles Street at 7 PM but if you see 5 p
  2. I think this is a very interesting question the article raises. First let me say, I approach this debate in a different way. I say there’s a natural interpretation of evolution and there’s an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. I think a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It’s designed to separate people from God and a natural interpretation of evolution is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humans. It’s impossible for a storage medium to encode it’s sequence with information. This is the domain of intelligence. The sequence of objects or symbols d
  3. Have you read the recent Wigner friend's experiments? There's no evidence of a universal collapse of the wave function. In fact, collapse may not occur at all and Wigner's friend in the lab has just become a part of the S+O system as Rovelli says in his Relational quantum mechanics. All physical interactions are, at bottom, quantum interactions, and must ultimately be governed by the same rules. Thus, an interaction between two particles does not, in RQM, differ fundamentally from an interaction between a particle and some "apparatus". There is no true wave collapse, in the sense in which
  4. I think this is an interesting thought experiment. It's a variation of the Wigner's friend experiment which could go down as one of the most important thought experiments in science. There's been a lot of papers on Wigner's friend lately. I think it supports the consciousness or awareness of the observer in QM is needed to fully explain quantum mechanics. https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/can-wigners-friend-lie-c3fabeaa7bbc This would be an interesting experiment. If Wigner's friend calls and tells Wigner the truth about what was measured and the Wigner can't carry out an interfer
  5. Sadly, you don't even understand the basics of the experiment. I'm done explaining and done with this forum. When you can't debate an issue, you do your best to hide it. The 2 threads have nothing to do with each other. Frauchiger and Renner are talking about the universality of QM which shows that 2 observers can measure different outcomes for the same event on a classical level. This is what universality means when talking about QM being applied to complex systems. This is the Mandela Effect but I'm done because you guys don't even understand the basics of the experiment.
  6. What? That thread has nothing to do with the Mandela Effect. You people are so closed minded. You just don't want a thread with the Mandela Effect in the title. Especially one that uses science that shows support for the Mandela Effect. The two threads have nothing to do with each other. Shameful!
  7. What you said makes no sense. Faulty memory? People remember Mandela dying in prison. People remember his funeral and news reports about his death. Again, if all is quantum like most physicist believe, then Frauchiger and Renner showed that around 8% of the time classical observers will get 2 different outcomes for the same event. Let me repeat. One friend (Anna) tosses a coin and (because she's luckily a physicist) makes a quantum message to send to her friend Brad. Brad (who is also a physicist) can pick up Anna's message and understand the result of the coin toss. T
  8. Has Science provided evidence that supports the Mandela Effect? I say yes. The recent Wigner's friend experiment and work by Frauchiger and Renner support this. New Interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat Disrupts Quantum Mechanics It might be the most famous thought experiment in the world. A cat in a box could either be alive or dead -- and until that box was opened, one had to theorize that it could be both. Physicist Erwin Schrodinger described the scenario, and it became one of the basic explanations for quantum theory. Now, two physicists are challenging that riddle with their own
  9. Good points! This is where you get all of the confusion. When you treat subatomic particles like classical particles you get paradox on top of paradox. This is because you're asking things like how can a particle be in two places at the same time. So now you're giving the attributes of a real but non physical wave function to particles and you get ridiculous notions like many worlds. I accept the multiverse of inflation which is about the expansion of space and limited configurations matter can be in. MWI is about applying attributes of something real but non physical to the p
  10. First, Professor Blood does rule out particles. Here's a direct quote from the Abstract. That's ruling them out. He has to couch it with cautious terms though because nothing in Science is truly proven outside of a mathematical theorem. With Relativity you still have to say if there isn't any evidence that comes along that changes things. Of course wave functions are not waves. That's why I titled the thread. The wave function is real but non physical according to quantum cryptography Again, you're just wasting time because you can't debate the issue. You have spent post
  11. No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance. Very good point that goes to the substance of the debate. Calling them particles causes confusion because when people think of particles you think of particles of sand or particles of salt. If course these particles can't be in a superposition of states. So there's not a one to one correspondence between particles in the classical sense and subatomic particles. So it's better described as a wave with particle like properties. You then have a real but non physical wave function a
  12. Sad, you can't debate or refute the issue so you keep bringing up non issues. If you want to start a separate thread about QFT then start it. There's mountains of evidence to debate like this. No Evidence for Particles Casey Blood Professor Emeritus of Physics Rutgers University https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf This is nothing new. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue because you can't refute the substance.
  13. Look, I know you want to quibble with semantics because you can't refute the substance. So you talk about rules of the forum because you obviously want the thread moved to speculation. Sadly, for you, you're question is answered in the substance of the post and I'll repeat it again. Easily, it's what Quantum Field Theory says. QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields. QFT doesn't say there aren't any particles. Here's another paper by Physicist Art Hobson. There are no particles, there are only fields https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf Again,
  14. Nope, very scientific. Just read the papers above. It's all laid out for you. I'm saying that particles don't have an existence separate from underlying quantum fields no more than droplets of water that for from huge waves have a separate existence from the ocean. Here's a key line from the Abstract. So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.
  15. I think a little more elaboration on the issue would be more enlightening to the debate. Like I said, we only see particles acting like particles. If you fire a bunch of photons one photon at a time at the double slits, you know what you will get at the screen? A bunch of photons. They just form an interference pattern so you assume that these photons that always act like photons are somehow physically acting like waves though we never see it. Why can't the opposite assumption be valid based on the evidence listed above that the wave function is real/non physical and the particles never a
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.