Jump to content

now that we have quantum physics, does this mean anything is possible?


Recommended Posts

Does this now mean that there could be any possible outcome from an event, and perhaps many outcomes spiral off into other dimensions that we don't perceive.

 

I like the idea that UFO's are extradimensional objects that we perceive in three dimensions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJsRi-4wdk

 

 

This one for instance is akin to the idea of a 3D rotating cube passing through a 2D world : where the inhabitants of that 2D world would experience a 2D morphing shape : is this the kind of thing we are experiencing with some UFO's and if it were, how could we possibly prove it considering their ephemerality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this now mean that there could be any possible outcome from an event,

 

That depends on what you mean by "possible".

 

If you are using the word with its common everyday meaning, then the answer is no.

Edited by DrRocket
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, say if I said "could a pink elephant fly out of my mouth now" the answer might be no because its never happened and likely to never happen, but its not physically impossible and if I imagined it, no say a million people imagined it happening : does it actually then happen in some form or dimension.

 

I guess what I am saying is that anything is possible within the limits of human consciousness, thats why we should always push for the development on consciousness

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, say if I said "could a pink elephant fly out of my mouth now" the answer might be no because its never happened and likely to never happen, but its not physically impossible and if I imagined it, no say a million people imagined it happening : does it actually then happen in some form or dimension.

 

I guess what I am saying is that anything is possible within the limits of human consciousness, thats why we should always push for the development on consciousness

 

rubbish

 

New age science is not science.

 

Imagination in science is distinct from hallucination and fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I thought the double slit experiment and other things proved that we can change matter through our conscious observation of it, is it just that you are afraid of a post-science future, and a convergence of our understanding rather than separate disciplines, where we have something new. It is no secret that science is in a crisis because of these discoveries.

 

I don't understand your use of terms like 'hallucination and fantasy' as if they are they are factored out from existence. If there are 10 or more dimensions then how can you be sure 'new age science' is 'not science' when really ideas like 'science' and 'the new age' and 'mysticism' are social constructs which either help us one way or another in our understanding of the world or hinder us, when they start to hinder us, we need a new understanding, it sounds as if you are stuck on some of the hindering aspects of what you think science is in opposition to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I thought the double slit experiment and other things proved that we can change matter through our conscious observation of it

No. The double slit experiment has nothing to do with conscious observation, and whoever has told you so is pretending they know quantum physics when they do not.

=Uncool-

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The double slit experiment has nothing to do with conscious observation, and whoever has told you so is pretending they know quantum physics when they do not.

=Uncool-

 

What does make it change its behavior?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does make it change its behavior?

 

That's the way the universe works, and its behavior is described very accurately with quantum mechanics.

Various aspects things are different if they're measured vs. not, which is counter to a classical understanding of the universe. It has nothing to do with whether there is a consciousness associated with the measurements (observations), at least not in any scientific interpretation of QM that I know of.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the way the universe works, and its behavior is described very accurately with quantum mechanics.

Various aspects things are different if they're measured vs. not, which is counter to a classical understanding of the universe. It has nothing to do with whether there is a consciousness associated with the measurements (observations), at least not in any scientific interpretation of QM that I know of.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

Wikipedia has a good pair of articles on this. Basically - photons are both a wave and a particle and when the individual protons are not measured, they act like a wave - thus the interference pattern - but when the photons are measured in a quantifiable manner at the slit, they are forced into one position or another and act like a particle.

 

And more on the mathematics involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englert%E2%80%93Greenberger_duality_relation

 

So... Not based on consciousness, no. The act of measuring a system changes the dynamics of the system - sometimes in minute ways, sometimes in very obvious ways. This is known as The Observer Effect and is sometimes mistaken as consciousness affecting the world just by thinking about something.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

 

Of course, just by thinking about the experiment we can't change the experiment or the mathematics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In quantum mechanics (and in science in general), the term "observation" does not equal observation by a concious entity (if they meant that they would have said that).

 

Strictly speaking "observation" in science means: "Something that interacts with the system".

 

So an electron could be "observed" by a photon, even though the photon has no conciousness at all. Conciousness is not a requirement of observation.

 

In the double slit experiment, what causes the behaviour to change is specifically what type of interaction takes place.

 

AN interaction is a sort of exchange of information. So if the detector is set up in one way, then when the particle interacts with it they exchange information, and it is the information in the layout of the detector that determines what aspects are exchanged.

 

Think about the word "Interaction". It is made up of two words "Inter" and "Action". Action you probably know the meaning of (ie: to do something), but "Inter" means "Between". So an interaction is an action that occurs between things.

 

So in science, when the word "Interaction" is used (such as between two particles), it means that the things "interacting" are sharing the action of exchanging information between them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that if we want to look closely at it, we have to hit it with something really energetic.

 

Well, not really, and the specifics depend on what experimental setup you have and there can be several subtleties, but the HUP is not the observer effect. You can get "which path" information without localizing the particle very much at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.