Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Capsules

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Cracka_X]
    #8227657 - 04/02/08 07:17 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

As for the double slit experiment with the eye/observer and resulting in a double line and not the wave pattern.... There must be something missing.




Why must something be missing? In order for a measurement to be taken, the thing being measured must be touched. The act of touching something changes it, thus the act of measuring something, changes it. There is no way around this within the bounds of duality. The term 'observe', though accurate, is misleading to the layman in the context of quantum physics. Observation, from a quantum physics view, cannot be passive; the 'observer' must interact with the thing being observed, thus the act of 'observing' must have an effect on the thing being observed.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Thor]
    #8227793 - 04/02/08 09:01 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Thor said:
Quote:

cleeen said:
sailing ships were not visible to islanders who had no knowledge of them , they could be offshore quite visible for days and weeks , but until the islanders recognized them as such Sailing ships were considered to be variants of Clouds ..




oh no not this again, you watched What the Bleep and believed this?




No . Actually , I recall it from PostGrad Social Psychology AND Philiosophy of Language Studies .

There are several examples i recall . That Islanders thought the Large White Sails of the Ships were Clouds and therefore the People who came from them were assumed to be at first "messengers of the Gods " .

The creation of Language is based upon rather strict laws of meaning . These Laws are rather ubiquitous .. so generalizations can be made based on proven prediction .

Similar verification can be made from the example of 20 questions

If the Answer to all the 20 questions gives no clarity .. the evidence demonstrates repeatedly that the Player will guess the item is "a CLOUD".. its a rather universal example of first descriptions and first images ...


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8228428 - 04/02/08 12:28 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Emergent order phenomena are not incompatible with the fundamental uncertainty relations. In most situations there's some kind of averaging across energy and length scales, and you may see a plethora of interesting behaviors depending on how these averaging are carried over and affecting things around. You're simply being mislead by your brain's pattern recognition capabilities and everyday intuition if you think the former would discredit the latter.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCepheus
Balance
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Seuss]
    #8229424 - 04/02/08 04:18 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> For example the anti particle of an electron is a positron. Instead of being negative it is positive.

Beta decay is a good example of this...  (beta plus decay to be accurate)




Beta minus decay still emits an antineutrino :wink:.

I tell you whats more interesting than light being something in between.. Electrons being something in between :grin:


--------------------
"I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst

:sun: "...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" :sun:

Free Spore Ring Europe
Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution :grin:

Open Source. Freedom.  GNU/Linux

Addicting is not a word.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCepheus
Balance
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 8,266
Loc: the space between reality...
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: Cepheus]
    #8229446 - 04/02/08 04:22 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Also; a good example of annihilation would be Positron emission tomography.. a beta plus source is introduced into the body then as the source decays it emits positrons, which then annihilate with electrons producing gamma photons :grin:, then depending on the time taken for the gamma photon to reach the detector it is possible to determine whereabouts the tumour (or whatever other nasty thing you might be looking for) is..

:thumbup: nuclear physics :laugh:


--------------------
"I only ever hope to reach equilibrium, in Nature's matrix, in line with the meridian" ~ Jehst

:sun: "...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" :sun:

Free Spore Ring Europe
Send any spare spore prints you might have and help the distribution :grin:

Open Source. Freedom.  GNU/Linux

Addicting is not a word.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8232718 - 04/03/08 09:37 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deimya said:
Emergent order phenomena are not incompatible with the fundamental uncertainty relations. In most situations there's some kind of averaging across energy and length scales, and you may see a plethora of interesting behaviors depending on how these averaging are carried over and affecting things around. You're simply being mislead by your brain's pattern recognition capabilities and everyday intuition if you think the former would discredit the latter.




Uncertainty relations are not at all fundamental .. they are marginal .
If uncertainty was fundamental then things would be unknowable . Uncertainty is conditional and reducible . Rules and systems and structures are Fundamental .


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8232797 - 04/03/08 10:11 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

No, you seem to interpret the name a bit too dramatically. Lets call them for what these relations are: non-commutation relations between observables. It means that the order in which you perform observations is very important, whence the uncertainty in the state itself. And yes uncertainty relations are fundamental as supported by experiments and predictability of the model and yes things are unknowable at a certain scale, which is very small. This scale is defined by the quantum of action, the Plank's constant h. Averaging of many of these events at this scale give rise to knowledgeability at lower resolutions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8233079 - 04/03/08 11:45 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Hmmm ...


Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..

Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..

"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..

Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?



--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8233285 - 04/03/08 12:36 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Could you substantiate these general claims of yours ? Calling out well defined ideas "scientific arrogance" and "intellectual absurdities" doesn't lead very far into understanding.

There is no knowledge to dwell for into ill formulated questions based on your everyday intuition and false assumptions. Quantum uncertainties speaks of mutually incompatible observables, quantities whose knowledges step on each others feet. Just because you can think of something doesn't mean you can find a meaningful answer to it, which is pretty much what you seem to search for here, answers to vague questions belonging to your pool of personal epistemology.


Quote:


Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..





These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination. To observe something identified with a particle can be very misleading in thinking these particles exist in themselves with definite properties derived from the way we observed them, in one on one correspondence with what we observed. We already had a discussion about photon which revolved around the same issue. These strict structures you so much care for need not be the one you would expect from an everyday object.

Quote:


Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..





Whatever your god is, which I guess here is of the pantheist specie, knowledge is still in the eye of the beholder and thus asking this kind of question is akin to ascribe human biases to nature.

Quote:


"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..





Pretty general of a claim you made there without any background of what you mean or substantiation. Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities, yet we have pretty certain laws (to the extend of our current knowledge) to give us a clear quantitative evaluation of the amount of uncertainty there is.

Quote:


Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?





Seems like it does yes, minus "manufactured superimposed" which sounds more like fear of uncertainties rather than a clever social critic. These uncertainties are not in the "laws" themselves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: deimya]
    #8235438 - 04/03/08 08:49 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deimya said:
Could you substantiate these general claims of yours ? Calling out well defined ideas "scientific arrogance" and "intellectual absurdities" doesn't lead very far into understanding.




Do you want me to explain what "scientific" arrogance and "intellectual absurdity" means .. or are you familiar with the terms ?

as far as substantiating the "claims" i have made - i do not know what you mean .. what claim(s) in particular are you stuck on ?


Quote:

There is no knowledge to dwell for into ill formulated questions based on your everyday intuition and false assumptions.




You sure you dont want to call me a chink , wog , spick or nigger while your at it ?
haha

Apparently , your everyday intuition and mine differ .. so what ? Everything differs .. identical is an intellectual absurdity .


Quote:

Quantum uncertainties speaks of mutually incompatible observables, quantities whose knowledges step on each others feet.




Rubbish .. you are painting pictures with words - conjuring up quantum particles that "speak to you" and that "have feet" and although classically entangled in synchronicity these articles these are also mutually incompatible ?? ..

Do you really really agree what you are writing ?

possible response being .. "Oh .. i didn't mean 'feet' as in feet - oh i didnt mean Speaking as in speaking .. oh i didnt mean mutually incompatible as in sharing no eigen space .."

So after that Hubris is removed what exactly did you mean to say but couldn't find the words ?

Quote:


Just because you can think of something doesn't mean you can find a meaningful answer to it,




So you dont understand the salient truth that "a properly formed question answers itself .." ?

Quote:

.. which is pretty much what you seem to search for here, answers to vague questions belonging to your pool of personal epistemology.




Is it allright if i mention that i dont have any idea what you are talking about with that phrase ? .. i dont even know if what you wrote it makes logical sense let alone that it comes across like the "vapor trail" of an inherently contradicted idea .



Quote:


Quote:


Are these things also to be unknowable to themselves just because of scientific arrogance ? ..





These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination. To observe something identified with a particle can be very misleading in thinking these particles exist in themselves with definite properties derived from the way we observed them, in one on one correspondence with what we observed.






Sure sure .. "These things you speak for are the figments of your imagination" .. do you work for the CIA ? You're not Dick Cheny are you .. because you give no certainty of what you refer to , and i am beginning to accept that you dont actually know and thats is why your psyche is wisely insisting on leading your paragraphs with such weak/corrupt declarative statements .

So for instance considering again at the plotted paths of these subatomic particles - you are claiming that these pathways do not bear any true significance to the actual paths .. or can you clarify exactly what your definite article " These things you speak for" relates to ?

Quote:

We already had a discussion about photon which revolved around the same issue. These strict structures you so much care for need not be the one you would expect from an everyday object.




You might consider "everyday objects" as strict structures but i dont ..
And , Photons photons photons .. why are so many people so religiously bent-up over photons ?  - me i prefer the Darker aspects where the greater powers reveal themselves .
And i doubt in all sincerity that your previous discussion of photons to which you refer resolved anything of significance ..

Quote:


Quote:


Not in the religious sense but the philosophical sense .. would these things be unknowable to God ? ..





Whatever your god is, which I guess here is of the pantheist specie, knowledge is still in the eye of the beholder and thus asking this kind of question is akin to ascribe human biases to nature.




"Ascribing Human bias's to nature" ? .. I have a rather comprehensive grasp of language and comprehension but once more can you come out of this rather cloud of uncertainty you are cloaking all your comments with and tell us specifically what on earth (or beyond) are you writing about ? ..


Furthermore , you apparently cannot free your concept of an "all seeing, all knowing god" from religion ? .. You do understand the priciples of the "Law of minimum" .. perhaps you could enlist some logic philosophy into your language to free yourself from the stream of indefinite adjectives you use to describe definite articles .. ie to free yourself from manufactured uncertainty .



Quote:

Quote:


"Fundamental uncertainty" and "Unknowable knowledge" are on the face of it simply intellectual absurdities ..





Pretty general of a claim you made there without any background of what you mean or substantiation.




WTF does that mean .. you keep leading your propositions with absurdities .. I simply do not consider "pretty general of a claim" to be decent language at all ..
Come on .. lift your game !!

Do you really think a thought like "unknowable knowledge" is at all intellectually decent ? .. because its not its absurd , and rather moronic

Maybe you can practice alchemy ,, but GIGO is also a rather universal intellectual law (Garbage in -Garbage out) And your are making declarations of uncertainty and knowledge that are garbage and thus any declarations you derive from them will be garbage too ..

Quote:

Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities




ok .. heres hoping you can save yourself .. tell us now .. declare it .. exactly what is the fundamental uncertainty in physical quantity you refer to  .. are you discussing size shape position effect weight mass ..

Give me but one single clear example of Fundamental uncertainty in evidence to consider ..

An open shot .. im all ears :smile:


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Edited by cleeen (04/05/08 02:00 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8235502 - 04/03/08 09:04 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

.. yet we have pretty certain laws (to the extend of our current knowledge) to give us a clear quantitative evaluation of the amount of uncertainty there is.




Do you really have to multiply your uncertainties so ambigiously .. ?
Its rather insightful that although you are heading towards a quantitative statement (ie to do with measure)
you have to cover your intellectual ass with multiplied uncertainty ..

Quote:


Quote:


Can this theory emerge out of the Grey Hubris zone of manufactured superimposed uncertainty and identify one single event/article that must be unknowable ?





Seems like it does yes, minus "manufactured superimposed" which sounds more like fear of uncertainties rather than a clever social critic. These uncertainties are not in the "laws" themselves.




Goodness gracious .. you are discussing the very fabric of reality and how certain you are of the nature of it .. and you lead your statement with "seems like" .. i simply will not take such a statement seriously ..

Perhaps you may do better at being a seamstress ..


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8235553 - 04/03/08 09:15 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Dude wtf are you talking about?  Scratch that, you dont know what you are talking about.





:kingtard:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8235559 - 04/03/08 09:16 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Ha, you are a funny guy to read.  Why dont you simply just look at the derivation of the Uncertainty Principle and tell us what parts of it you disagree with?  Id be more than happy to go over the derivation with you, so please take a look, and report back with what part you are having trouble with.  Otherwise, its time for you to stop talking :shrug:  There is NO reason to continue this discussion with words, lets simply examine PURE math and the formulation of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle and decide which part of it you think is false.  Otherwise you are just :whatever:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: TheCow]
    #8236962 - 04/04/08 02:10 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Thats exactly what i mean to thecrow , although you said it with better style ..

Just remember that all scientific formulae can be written in words of logical statement .. its just that scientific notation doesn't demonstrate the absurdities nearly so well as words do .

I hope you agree that all proper discussions (and mathematical formulae) should begin with a clear definition of terms ..


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8237009 - 04/04/08 02:36 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Btw in the meantime i think it would be useful for a few people to examine some of the original experimental data from the most significant experiments .. especially with the observation of the sequence and pattern of the sequence of electron markers .. they simply dont present as very random to me from the original data - and i am pretty sure the researchers themselves pondered deeply on the subject .

I think i have a link to the relevant video sections and will post - edit post them in this thread

cheers


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8237150 - 04/04/08 05:42 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Btw in the meantime i think it would be useful for a few people to examine some of the original experimental data from the most significant experiments .. especially with the observation of the sequence and pattern of the sequence of electron markers .. they simply dont present as very random to me from the original data - and i am pretty sure the researchers themselves pondered deeply on the subject .




This is what I mean by simple pattern recognition. Unless it is backed by at least an empirical law I don't see why anybody should take this seriously.

Quote:


I hope you agree that all proper discussions (and mathematical formulae) should begin with a clear definition of terms ..





I agree and we are quite a few guilty of no properly ascribing to this principle.

Quote:


Do you want me to explain what "scientific" arrogance and "intellectual absurdity" means .. or are you familiar with the terms ?

as far as substantiating the "claims" i have made - i do not know what you mean .. what claim(s) in particular are you stuck on ?





"I what sense are they arrogant" was my question, which I did not make clear. I spoke of fundamental uncertainties in the physical sense. Where did I speak of unknowable knowledge ?

Quote:


You sure you dont want to call me a chink , wog , spick or nigger while your at it ?
haha

Apparently , your everyday intuition and mine differ .. so what ? Everything differs .. identical is an intellectual absurdity .





Yes I am. I was referring to anyone's everyday intuition and false assumptions, which is pretty common and shouldn't be taken as an insult. Why do you anyway ?

Quote:


Rubbish .. you are painting pictures with words - conjuring up quantum particles that "speak to you" and that "have feet" and although classically entangled in synchronicity these articles these are also mutually incompatible ?? ..

Do you really really agree what you are writing ?

possible response being .. "Oh .. i didn't mean 'feet' as in feet - oh i didnt mean Speaking as in speaking .. oh i didnt mean mutually incompatible as in sharing no eigen space .."

So after that Hubris is removed what exactly did you mean to say but couldn't find the words ?





We can only paint pictures with words as they serve as symbols and not much more. And I used these words as not to use formulas. I am sure you're smart enough to see through my personalism without getting supposedly so confused. Unfortunately I do not indeed always find the words as my english is mostly second hand and self-taught. Again I was simply referring to non-commuting quantities, the rest is much better written in TheCow's post.

Quote:


So you dont understand the salient truth that "a properly formed question answers itself .." ?





Apart from the anecdotic truth of it, no, I don't. I would be interesting to know what you think about it.

Quote:


Is it allright if i mention that i dont have any idea what you are talking about with that phrase ? .. i dont even know if what you wrote it makes logical sense let alone that it comes across like the "vapor trail" of an inherently contradicted idea .





I always have the feeling that you're never quite coming out with your ideas, only stating them as philosophical truths so obvious only idiots might think of questioning them. I guess this is where both sides in this discussion are standing anyway.

Quote:


and i am beginning to accept that you dont actually know and thats is why your psyche is wisely insisting on leading your paragraphs with such weak/corrupt declarative statements .

So for instance considering again at the plotted paths of these subatomic particles - you are claiming that these pathways do not bear any true significance to the actual paths .. or can you clarify exactly what your definite article " These things you speak for" relates to ?





My language limits me in embarrassing ways. But yes, regarding these paths, obviously these are the actual paths we measured, but had you not measured them there would be no way of knowing what the actual path is, both in the canonical and the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.

Quote:


You might consider "everyday objects" as strict structures but i dont ..
And , Photons photons photons .. why are so many people so religiously bent-up over photons ? - me i prefer the Darker aspects where the greater powers reveal themselves .
And i doubt in all sincerity that your previous discussion of photons to which you refer resolved anything of significance ..





No, I had the impression you did ascribe structure in everyday objects to the microscopic world. And this photon discussion was clouded in the same misunderstandings indeed.

Quote:


"Ascribing Human bias's to nature" ? .. I have a rather comprehensive grasp of language and comprehension but once more can you come out of this rather cloud of uncertainty you are cloaking all your comments with and tell us specifically what on earth (or beyond) are you writing about ? ..





Ascribing as in projecting one's human expectations, assumptions, etc, into her/his interpretation of natural phenomena and reality. I don't share your background in philosophy of languages and I feel the same toward your comments. Each time you come with an explanation or clarification, I too only read more and more manufactured uncertainties.

Quote:


Furthermore , you apparently cannot free your concept of an "all seeing, all knowing god" from religion ? .. You do understand the priciples of the "Law of minimum" .. perhaps you could enlist some logic philosophy into your language to free yourself from the stream of indefinite adjectives you use to describe definite articles .. ie to free yourself from manufactured uncertainty .





Pantheism has nothing to do with an all seeing, all knowing god. In fact it is closer to naturalist atheism than anything else having a "-theism" in its name. Read it up.

Quote:


WTF does that mean .. you keep leading your propositions with absurdities .. I simply do not consider "pretty general of a claim" to be decent language at all ..
Come on .. lift your game !!





I am asking for clarification as I have no idea wtf you did mean. Ironic isn't it ?

Quote:


Do you really think a thought like "unknowable knowledge" is at all intellectually decent ? .. because its not its absurd , and rather moronic





Refresh me, where did I speak of unknowable knowledge ?


Quote:


Maybe you can practice alchemy ,, but GIGO is also a rather universal intellectual law (Garbage in -Garbage out) And your are making declarations of uncertainty and knowledge that are garbage and thus any declarations you derive from them will be garbage too ..





Fair enough, but you'll have to clarify your language too as GIGO apply to everybody.

Quote:


Also plugging an oxymoron where there was none in no way clarify your stance. Fundamental uncertainties are there in physical quantities

ok .. heres hoping you can save yourself .. tell us now .. declare it .. exactly what is the fundamental uncertainty in physical quantity you refer to .. are you discussing size shape position effect weight mass ..

Give me but one single clear example of Fundamental uncertainty in evidence to consider ..





I simply referring to Heisenberg's non-commutation relation again yes, nothing more.

Quote:


An open shot .. im all ears :smile:





I'm happy to hear that, but I fear I cannot elevate my game to yours.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: cleeen]
    #8237434 - 04/04/08 08:55 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

cleeen said:
Do you really have to multiply your uncertainties so ambigiously .. ?
Its rather insightful that although you are heading towards a quantitative statement (ie to do with measure)
you have to cover your intellectual ass with multiplied uncertainty ..





Ever heard of the scientific method ? Is there something wrong with covering my intellectual ass by stating one is pretty sure within certain bounds ? Please enlighten me such that I too can benefit from your cocksureness.

Quote:


Goodness gracious .. you are discussing the very fabric of reality and how certain you are of the nature of it .. and you lead your statement with "seems like" .. i simply will not take such a statement seriously ..

Perhaps you may do better at being a seamstress ..




Highbrow much ?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: IAMenlightened]
    #8240932 - 04/05/08 12:39 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

IAMenlightened said:
makes me think of if a tree fell in the woods did it make a noise




I really cannot see why that question ever gained popularity let alone any credibility in science .

Great of you to bring it up tho IAMe ,

The other stupid one is shrodingers cat .. i dont want to know if i splet that right .. Cat is in a box with capsule of poisoness gas that may or not open .. thus after some more stupid talk they declare the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead . - yeah right , clearly in this example the cat would have been the better mathematician .

Dont get me wrong i have nothing against being 50/50 its just shuch a stuhpid example .. same as the trees in the forest like amazingly innanely criminally stupid .

Makes me want to pick up the nearest large object and hurl it at their heads haha - can allways have them admit in court he only 50% hit me sir

btw have you seen the movie "Idiocracy" with Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Dax Shepard. Private Joe Bauers - highly reccomended **


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8240959 - 04/05/08 12:49 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Not just light but particles (mass) also! Why? Who knows why the universe is the way it is...

Look into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to gain a little conceptual understanding of why you cannot observe something without effecting it. In short the only way to observe anything is to bounce shit off of it. With sight we bounce light off of things we see. But of course when you bounce light off of something, you effect it.



"
See that first sentence/question DC ?
The "Why" questions are by definition unanswerable .. to a degree yes but never fully possible .. try applying it to any important human event and you will never get an answer .. thousands of answers yes but all personal opinion .

What on the other hand is a far more useful question

I say whats that .. you say 2x4 .. If i had said why's and you would want to hit me with it .

How exactly is the Universe anyway ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
Re: Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment [Re: DieCommie]
    #8241004 - 04/05/08 01:03 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
What do you mean what changes is the setup of the experiment? The light does change if it is observed or not. You cannot measure light as a wave, when you measure it it collapses to a particle. If you run the double slit experiment (with light or mass) and dont look to see what slit it goes through, you get an interference pattern. If you do look to se what slit it goes through, you do not get an interference pattern. That is a clear indication that observation does have an effect.

John Bell showed this is the case in 1964. He proved that there are no hidden variables, and the fact that we dont know where the particle is before observation is not due to our ignorance but is a fact of nature. This eliminates the so called 'realist' interpretation, and leaves only the copenhagen or agnostic interpretations.




what was the realist interpretation ? .. that it was an experimental dependant result ? .. that is what i would say as well , but you have to be realistic about the word too .
The realist interpretation would be that there was a mechanism involved but we didnt use and might not have yet the equiptment to decode it ..

I dont believe that John Bell could have possibly proven this in 1964 . On Principal - without seeing the cards based on my intuition and opinion after a lifetime of study .

Did he also come up with a name or phrase for the force that connects the observer to the outcome .. is it suggested to be an energy field ? ..

does it communicate this action faster than 300km/ms ?


--------------------
It's a beautiful lie ..
It's a perfect denial .
Such a beautiful lie to believe in
So beautiful, beautiful it makes me ..


Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus!

Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight.

Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.


Edited by cleeen (04/05/08 02:22 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Capsules


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )
ergot 5,216 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* An interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (inspired by psychedelics!) BellumDeorum 677 4 10/22/23 06:49 PM
by Nillion
* Physics help sh1ver 2,082 2 12/25/03 11:39 AM
by micro
* Cool physics site micro 590 1 12/30/03 12:51 AM
by Metaxas
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,495 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Hawking cracks black hole paradox MAIA 1,381 6 07/27/04 09:50 AM
by MAIA
* Nothing exists MushyMay 1,206 8 03/11/03 10:23 AM
by iconoclast
* Huston, we have a problem. AnnoA 1,252 11 04/20/03 11:20 AM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
16,933 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.