461 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 09 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

The josephson junction is the physical proof. I'm not confusing no such thing. A wave has very specific physical properties through a medium. As I mentioned there is no wave. Wave behavior.... Sure superficialy... But no wave.

Until you can disprove wave-particle duality, your claims stand against testable evidence.
The Josephson junction proves you wrong. Quantum tunneling is explained by wave-particle duality. Do you have an experiment that shows the wave does not exist?

BTW your remark "Wave behavior.... Sure superficialy... But no wave" is confusing, a wave is the travelling oscillation, this is a behavior. Wave behavior and a wave describe the same thing.

Quote

Listen. The particle does exist but only after being detected. When it is in superposition it's not a thing as we understand things to be. Part of our understanding of "things" is that they exist in spacetime. We know for a fact that an object in superposition can manifest in a range of places ( this is the wave function). If that range extends through a barrier, the particle can manifest on the other side of the barrier without ever haveing to go through the barrier which shows us it is not traveling through spacetime . In fact the wave function does not have a limit. It actually extends throughout the whole universe just decreasing in ever minute probabilities. Fusion in the sun relies on this.

I see you haven't bothered to read about wave-particle duality.

Quote

Your mind wants to see the particle traveling through space to strike a detection screen, but this is simply not the case.

Depends what you mean by particle, if you mean the particle behavior wise you're right, if you mean the elementary particle then no you're wrong. In fact none of our experiments would work if the elementary particles didn't exist while travelling. Can't detect something that isn't there.

Quote

You can look it all up yourself. Plenty of research, experiments, and proof is available.

And you can't list one.
Even NASA contradicts you, explaining the photon wave as a real thing or behavior that travels through space.

http://www-spof.gsfc...ze/Sun5wave.htm

Mr Right Wing, on 09 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Did you not understand what was in the video?

Experiment shows photons travelling as waves depending on the set up.
I hope someone with your education understood that.

Edited by Rlyeh, 09 December 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 09 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

1. Until you can disprove wave-particle duality, your claims stand against testable evidence.
2. The Josephson junction proves you wrong.
3. Quantum tunneling is explained by wave-particle duality.
4. Do you have an experiment that shows the wave does not exist?
5. But no wave" is confusing, a wave is the travelling oscillation, this is a behavior. Wave behavior and a wave describe the same thing.
6. I see you haven't bothered to read about wave-particle duality.
7. Depends what you mean by particle, if you mean the particle behavior wise you're right, if you mean the elementary particle then no you're wrong. In fact none of our experiments would work if the elementary particles didn't exist while travelling.
8. Even NASA contradicts you, explaining the photon wave as a real thing or behavior that travels through space. http://www-spof.gsfc...ze/Sun5wave.htm

1. Why? What he said is only at odds with wave-particle duality in your head no one elses lol.
2. No it doesnt he's completely right.
3. Yeah thats correct.
4. The wave isnt a physical wave like one from the ocean. Its a probability equation called a wavefunction and is just a peice of maths. It is not a physical object.
5. Again its not a physical wave. Physical waves oscillate but a wavefunction doesnt. A wavefunction instantly exists throughout the entire universe and when collapsed your photon has the highest chance of coming into existance in places where the probability is highest.
6. You ability to see something which isnt written down is outstanding.
7. Physics is not going to conform to materialism because you cant accept anything else.
8. Nasa doesnt contradict him. You make assumptions about stuff which isnt written, you distort to fit your worldview and you blind yourself to all bits of science at odds with it.

At first I thought you were just a troll but as the debates have gone by I can see that you're the most biased, self-deluded person I have ever met. I would put you forward for a reward if they had one as its impressive (or scarey depending on how you look at it lol).

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 09 December 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 09 December 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

4. The wave isnt a physical wave like one from the ocean. Its a probability equation called a wavefunction and is just a peice of maths. It is not a physical object.

Wrong. The double slit experiment shows the wave is a physical behavior. Depending on the setup, the photon behaves as either a particle or wave. The experiment records the particle or wave behavior of photons. Saying the waves do not exist when they have been detected, is nothing more than complete and utter denial.
Not sure how much more simple it can be made.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Double-slit

Quote

5. Again its not a physical wave. Physical waves oscillate but a wavefunction doesnt. A wavefunction instantly exists throughout the entire universe and when collapsed your photon has the highest chance of coming into existance in places where the probability is highest.

The wavefunction is a mathematical concept reflecting probability, a wave is a behavior. This has been pointed out before and you still get it wrong.

Quote

7. Physics is not going to conform to materialism because you cant accept anything else.

Still you pretend but deep down your bias against particle physics keeps raising it's ugly head.

Quote

8. Nasa doesnt contradict him. You make assumptions about stuff which isnt written, you distort to fit your worldview and you blind yourself to all bits of science at odds with it.

Actually it does when the article plainly states light travels as a wave. I know your reading skills leave much to be desired but even someone with basic reading skills couldn't have missed it.

Quote

At first I thought you were just a troll but as the debates have gone by I can see that you're the most biased, self-deluded person I have ever met. I would put you forward for a reward if they had one as its impressive (or scarey depending on how you look at it lol).

Look at this thread, most people here see you in the same light. Lets face it, you reject science, are completely ignorant of QM interpretations.
The only world you perceive is the inside of your large bowel.

Edited by Rlyeh, 09 December 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 09 December 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Wrong. The double slit experiment shows the wave is a physical behavior. Depending on the setup, the photon behaves as either a particle or wave. The experiment records the particle or wave behavior of photons. Saying the waves do not exist when they have been detected, is nothing more than complete and utter denial.
Not sure how much more simple it can be made.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Double-slit
I know your reading skills leave much to be desired

Hahahaha you say this to everyone who disagrees with you.

A light wave traveling through space isn't in superposition.... It's only when we we try to pin down particles within the margins of the uncertainty principle do quantum effects emerge.

We have not been talking about light waves we have been talking individual particles and how to inturpret quantum effects.

How come you wont address Quantum tunneling?


This reminds of when you would not believe me that objects at opposite ends of the universe are accrlerating faster than the speed of light away from each other. You keep telling me I couldn't read.

I think you are confused.

Edited by Seeker79, 09 December 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 09 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Until you can disprove wave-particle duality,
BTW your remark "Wave behavior.... Sure superficialy... But no wave" is confusing, a wave is the travelling oscillation, this is a behavior. Wave behavior and a wave describe the same.

Uggggg

A wave is energy in a meidium. The oscillating particles carry the the energy.

A particle in super position is a wave FUNCTION. A wave FUNCTION is a matmatical construct.  the particle is not bumping into air and exchanging its energy.

This is why the experiment gets the same result in a vacuum than it does in regular air. Quite obviously if it were an actual peice of material traveling through regular air in an atmosphere, there would be no interfearance pattern because it would react with the particles in the air. Mabey being so small it would evenchually slip through unmolested, but the experiments are consistent. The particle is not a THING until detected, in some way, so obstacles do not affect it. Not air, not brick walls, not confused people. It's a function. Mathematical concepts don't have to worry about walls or air. This is exactly how the particle behaves. It does not act like a thing, not even a wave through a medium. It acts like an immaterial concept, and only starts acting like a thing when it is measured in some way.

The only aspect of wave behavior it exhibits, is if in the double slit, scientists do not try to pinpoint its location. Then the distribution of the particles has an interference pattern LIKE A WAVE. this is why we say it had both particle and wave properties (particle wave  duality) no where was it ever implied that was an actual wave traveling through a medium. The only medium for something so small would be space itself. But if this were its medium, then obstacles would affect it... And they don't, so there is no wave using space as a medium. Something not existing in space, is not a thing by our definitions of things. Something extraordinary is going on behind the scenes and in between the quanta.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Right Wing, on 09 December 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

1. A solipsist believes that only their mind exists and everything else is an illusion. I'm not a solipsist I'm a non-dualist. The difference is that I realise the whole universe is my mind because its just a collection of perceptions. Thats the crucial difference.
2. That misconception arises because you dont know the difference between solipsism and non-dualism. My mind isnt at the centre of the universe I am the universe.
3. The reason why you think my concepts are incorrect is you dont know the difference between solipsism and non-dualism.
4. When you cant see that reality is just a collection of perceptions then you mistake your mind for being a product of those perceptions. You mind makes the perceptions it isnt constructed from them.
5. Precisely. Quantum Mechanics has 100s of experiments all saying that.
6. The dual slit experiment shows that not even the atom exists until measured.
7. In what way is Quantum Mechanics not non-dualism? You dont understand either.
8. No, its what Quantum Mechanics says.
9. You dont have a physics degree (or similar) which is why you have that stance. If you knew what they taught you on a physics degree you'd be stunned. You live in a dumbed down society where you arent taught the truth so you dont know any different. The Newtonian view of reality was proved wrong over 100 years ago. We are on Quantum Physics these days.
10. Much of science remains based on the Newtonian view of reality. To date Quantum Mechanics is used in electronics (tvs, pcs, dvd players, etc), in some fields of medicine (x-rays, radiation therapy), in aviation (stealth bombers, radar), in communications (fibre optics, mobile phones, radios) and one or two other little areas. Evolution is at odds with Quantum Mechanics but that field of science hasnt been touched by it, yet.

Treat yourself this Christmans - http://compare.ebay....&var=sbar&cbt=y



Did you not understand what was in the video?

I appreciate your differentiation of your philosophy; none the less it is as wrong as the descartian version. I have also read extensively on modern quantum physics. One doesn't need a physics degree to understand something if one can read and think.

I have also read numerous arguments which combine the theory in science with the philosophical model. I think that is always a danger. Your argument is basically no different to creationism  except that it uses some theoretical elements of quantum physics which no one is really certain of as yet, to underpin it.

Your arguement presupposes that consciousness is all and preexisting; and that our belief in evolution, for example, is just a product of the mind like everything else. Not only is that basically dumb, it is a dead end  in both philosophy and science.

If i have misunderstood your position on this I aplogise, But i have read so many other similar pov that i get frustrated that belief is allowed to overule common sense. Consciousness cannot exist without a preceding eveolutionary development of that consciousness Because consciousness requires a learning process to become, and that requires either natural or engineered hosts to create the consciousness.

Many other elements of science and medicine confirm this making the form of consciousness you speak of  possible but not as you understand it. Our consciousness IS an evolved product of our organic mind,  but it has properties and connections we are only just beginning to understand.

The abilty to theorise as you do, only comes from your evolved self awareness and mental capacity.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 December 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 09 December 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Hahahaha you say this to everyone who disagrees with you.

Who? You and Mr RW?

Quote

A light wave traveling through space isn't in superposition.... It's only when we we try to pin down particles within the margins of the uncertainty principle do quantum effects emerge.

We have not been talking about light waves we have been talking individual particles and how to inturpret quantum effects.

I am. In fact if you bothered to read, I've been taking of light waves in the last few posts.

Quote

How come you wont address Quantum tunneling?

I did.

Quote

This reminds of when you would not believe me that objects at opposite ends of the universe are accrlerating faster than the speed of light away from each other. You keep telling me I couldn't read.

More like when you thought the quantum eraser experiment had recorded data being erased, that time you didn't read.

Edited by Rlyeh, 10 December 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 09 December 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

A wave is energy in a meidium. The oscillating particles carry the the energy.

Spacetime is the medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

Quote

A particle in super position is a wave FUNCTION. A wave FUNCTION is a matmatical construct.  the particle is not bumping into air and exchanging its energy.

Now you're confusing yourself again. The wavefunction *describes* the probability of the particle or quantum state.

Quote

*Straw man argument*

No one called it AIR or movement through air, not once did I use the word or even imply air, water, or atoms. I thought you were more intelligent than this?

Edited by Rlyeh, 10 December 2012 - 01:13 AM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 10 December 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Spacetime is the medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

Now you're confusing yourself again. The wavefunction *describes* the probability of the particle or quantum state.

No one called it AIR or movement through air, not once did I use the word or even imply air, water, or atoms. I thought you were more intelligent than this?

You would make a good congressman, you have mastered the art of philibustering.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 10 December 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

You would make a good congressman, you have mastered the art of philibustering.

You know there is a job where people like you are paid for misrepresenting the opponent's position, it's called being a lawyer.

Edited by Rlyeh, 10 December 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[FlyingAngel]

This thread is starting to derail into a science debate and no one here is a physic professor and has enough knowledge to judge who is right or wrong. Maybe you guys should move to a science forum or explain in a human understandable language. I don't really care about the definition of wave/function or whether it goes through obstacle or not, it doesn't answer to the OP question

[Rlyeh]

If you are correct Seeker79, the LHC is a big waste of money. One if its purposes is to study particle behavior that occured in the early universe.

http://public.web.ce...C/ALICE-en.html

Another is to study particles that make up dark matter

http://public.web.ce...C/ATLAS-en.html
http://public.web.ce...LHC/CMS-en.html

Edited by Rlyeh, 10 December 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mr Walker, on 09 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I appreciate your differentiation of your philosophy; none the less it is as wrong as the descartian version. I have also read extensively on modern quantum physics. One doesn't need a physics degree to understand something if one can read and think.

I have also read numerous arguments which combine the theory in science with the philosophical model. I think that is always a danger. Your argument is basically no different to creationism except that it uses some theoretical elements of quantum physics which no one is really certain of as yet, to underpin it.

Your arguement presupposes that consciousness is all and preexisting; and that our belief in evolution, for example, is just a product of the mind like everything else. Not only is that basically dumb, it is a dead end  in both philosophy and science.

If i have misunderstood your position on this I aplogise, But i have read so many other similar pov that i get frustrated that belief is allowed to overule common sense. Consciousness cannot exist without a preceding eveolutionary development of that consciousness Because consciousness requires a learning process to become, and that requires either natural or engineered hosts to create the consciousness.

Many other elements of science and medicine confirm this making the form of consciousness you speak of  possible but not as you understand it. Our consciousness IS an evolved product of our organic mind,  but it has properties and connections we are only just beginning to understand.

The abilty to theorise as you do, only comes from your evolved self awareness and mental capacity.

Going back to the dual slit experiment -

Later on in the video they decide to test materialism. They wait until after a photon has passed the slits then decide to see which one it went through. This causes the past to be retrospectively erased which is called retrocausality. In Quantum Physics this is often referred to as parallel histories (all histories exist until measurement selects one).

My stance is that I'm not the product of evolution. History is what has come into existance to prop up the illusion I'm experiencing as reality.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 December 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Insaniac]

Stephen Hawking's "Time has no beginning, it just is." somewhat goes hand in hand with the Holy Bible.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." ~ Revelation 1:8

It's mind-blowing when you try to imagine when creation began.

[Mr Right Wing]

Insaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Stephen Hawking's "Time has no beginning, it just is." somewhat goes hand in hand with the Holy Bible.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." ~ Revelation 1:8

It's mind-blowing when you try to imagine when creation began.

I have existed science the dawn of time and I will exist until the last star falls from the heavens. I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am a God - Caligula (madman or philosophical genius?)