Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Quantum physics proves that there IS an after


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#136    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,557 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 November 2013 - 01:55 AM

View PostSilentHunter, on 27 November 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

All objects and all atomic particles are bigger than one unit on the Planck Scale. Imagine the size of an atom compared to a house. Thats small right? Well imagine that contrast again and you have the difference in size between a unit on the Planck Scale and an electron. The Planck Scale is so utterly small we have no direct evidence for it yet

Several macroscopic objects have been made to behave as waves. Its not impossible for it to occur naturally in nature by itself at our kind of scale just rare.
I'm not sure that corresponds to what I read on Wiki. The Planck Mass unit is about 21 micrograms. The article seems to suggest that this is about an upper limit where wave behavior becomes impossible to detect.

I suppose that is not to say that a larger object can't act as a wave, but that it is not currently possible for humans to detect/observe it such is happening.

Is there an example of such a rare macroscopic object acting as a wave?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#137    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 November 2013 - 11:52 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 28 November 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

I'm not sure that corresponds to what I read on Wiki. The Planck Mass unit is about 21 micrograms. The article seems to suggest that this is about an upper limit where wave behavior becomes impossible to detect.

I suppose that is not to say that a larger object can't act as a wave, but that it is not currently possible for humans to detect/observe it such is happening.

Is there an example of such a rare macroscopic object acting as a wave?

The important for wave-like behaviour of an object is that object's de Broglie wavelength.

Any sufficiently isolated object can ``self-entangle'' (usually only at extremely low temperatures) and this entanglement can lead to wavelike behaviour.

It is not necessary for the de Broglie wavelength to be larger than the ``normal size'' of the object itself; see this article in Nature Communications where wave-like behaviour was observed in a molecule even though the normal size of the object was 600 000 times larger than its de Broglie wavelength.


#138    SilentHunter

SilentHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2013

Posted 28 November 2013 - 02:55 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 28 November 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

I'm not sure that corresponds to what I read on Wiki. The Planck Mass unit is about 21 micrograms. The article seems to suggest that this is about an upper limit where wave behavior becomes impossible to detect.

I suppose that is not to say that a larger object can't act as a wave, but that it is not currently possible for humans to detect/observe it such is happening.

Is there an example of such a rare macroscopic object acting as a wave?

The planck length is 1.62 x 10 to the minus 35 metres. I have no idea what you're on about and think you're confusing the planck length with something else.


#139    Bildr

Bildr

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec Province(Canada)

  • “Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious.” -Carl Gustav Jung

Posted 28 November 2013 - 03:08 PM

Well there's a recent theory that state that an object's physical properties can be disembodied from the object itself: http://phys.org/news...adoxes.html#jCp
Makes you wonder a little...heh!?

Posted Image


#140    gatekeeper32

gatekeeper32

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 November 2013 - 09:19 PM

Here is question. What would people be more afraid of, if life after death was proven real or if it was proven not to exist?


#141    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,557 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 01 December 2013 - 08:03 AM

View PostSilentHunter, on 28 November 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

The planck length is 1.62 x 10 to the minus 35 metres. I have no idea what you're on about and think you're confusing the planck length with something else.
Clearly you are the one confused. I was talking about Plank Mass. Not 'length'. Did you read any of what I posted or did you leap to conclusions?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#142    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,557 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 01 December 2013 - 08:07 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 28 November 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

The important for wave-like behaviour of an object is that object's de Broglie wavelength.

Any sufficiently isolated object can ``self-entangle'' (usually only at extremely low temperatures) and this entanglement can lead to wavelike behaviour.

It is not necessary for the de Broglie wavelength to be larger than the ``normal size'' of the object itself; see this article in Nature Communications where wave-like behaviour was observed in a molecule even though the normal size of the object was 600 000 times larger than its de Broglie wavelength.
But clearly I said that it was not impossible for such to happen. Only that when a object exceeds the Planck Mass boundary that we don't have the ability to confirm that such has happened. Or at least that is how I have read about it so far.

If I'm wrong please go fix the Wikipedia article.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#143    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 December 2013 - 08:38 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 01 December 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

But clearly I said that it was not impossible for such to happen. Only that when a object exceeds the Planck Mass boundary that we don't have the ability to confirm that such has happened. Or at least that is how I have read about it so far.

If I'm wrong please go fix the Wikipedia article.

The Schwarzschild radius is only a meaningful length scale if the entire mass of the object is contained within that radius. Since the article I mentioned above reports molecular diffraction, even though the de Broglie wavelength was many orders of magnitude smaller than the spatial extent of the object, I am not sure the argument that is mentioned in the Wiki that you linked to applies here.

The molecule was 6000 pm (not 600 000 pm, like I erroneously mentioned the first time) long, the de Broglie wavelength only about 1 pm, and (if my calculations are correct this time) the Compton wavelength would be about 200 pm.

If the object is spatially confined to within its own Compton wavelength then I think the argument the Wiki presents might be more valid.

But entanglement is not exactly the same as Bose-Einstein condensation (this is what might cause an object to collapse to negligible size); so I think entangling a Planck-mass molecule does not necessarily reduce the size of that molecule.


#144    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 834 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 01 December 2013 - 09:48 AM

Here's a good rule of thumb; Every time you see or hear someone who isn't a physicist use the word quantum you can safely assume that they don't know what they're talking about.

Life is the result of the struggle between dynamic opposites Form & Chaos, Substance & Oblivion, Light & Dark And all the infinite variations of Yin & Yang
When the pendulum swings in favour of one It will eventually swing in favour of it's opposite Thus the balance of the universe is maintained

-Jeru the Damaja

#145    SilentHunter

SilentHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2013

Posted 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 01 December 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Clearly you are the one confused. I was talking about Plank Mass. Not 'length'. Did you read any of what I posted or did you leap to conclusions?

No, because I know for a fact what you wrote was wrong lmao. The Planck Mass is not 21 micrograms (0.021g) its at the scale of nanograms (0.0000000043kg). Whats funny is the Wiki you linked us too actually tells you that too.

The Planck Mass is not the limit for quantum behaviour in objects its the limit at which they can guarentee quantum behaviour is occuring (assuming no measurements with a specialist particle detector). You can get objects large enough to be seen with the eye behaving quantum mechanically (trillions of trillions of trillions of atoms). An example is one of the super conducting magnets at CERN or an object cooled to near absolute zero so that it goes into a superposition of states.

The mistake in your logic is you think mass or size is what determines quantum behaviour. It doesnt. Its information leaking from Object A to Object B. If Object B receives information from Object A then Object A exists as an object to it instead of being a wave. The only way that size has any influence is that the larger the number of atoms involved the more information leakage and therefore the more chance of some of it reaching Object B.

Edited by SilentHunter, 01 December 2013 - 04:50 PM.


#146    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 December 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostSilentHunter, on 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

No, because I know for a fact what you wrote was wrong lmao. The Planck Mass is not 21 micrograms (0.021g) its at the scale of nanograms (0.0000000043kg). Whats funny is the Wiki you linked us too actually tells you that too.
I gotta side with DieChecker here, the wiki in question mentions the ``reduced Planck mass'' of 4.3 x 10-9 kg, which is still on the order of micrograms. A nanogram would be ~10-12 kg.

View PostSilentHunter, on 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

The Planck Mass is not the limit for quantum behaviour in objects its the limit at which they can guarentee quantum behaviour is occuring (assuming no measurements with a specialist particle detector).
No it isn't.

View PostSilentHunter, on 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

You can get objects large enough to be seen with the eye behaving quantum mechanically (trillions of trillions of trillions of atoms). An example is one of the super conducting magnets at CERN or an object cooled to near absolute zero so that it goes into a superposition of states.
No you can't. A superconductor is not a macroscopic quantum object, and the quantum coherence certainly doesn't extend to trillions and trillions and trillions of atoms.

Superconducting coherence lengths are only on the order of tens (or sometimes hundreds) of nanometers, and decrease with increasing critical temperature (see here and here, for example); and the energies involved (around kBTc) are well below the energy of visible light, meaning that these effects are impossible to observer with the eye - so even in the case of Aluminum with a superconducting coherence length of 1.6 um, a length scale that could perhaps be observable under a microscope, the quantum effect could not be observed ``with the eye''.

View PostSilentHunter, on 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

The mistake in your logic is you think mass or size is what determines quantum behaviour. It doesnt. Its information leaking from Object A to Object B. If Object B receives information from Object A then Object A exists as an object to it instead of being a wave. The only way that size has any influence is that the larger the number of atoms involved the more information leakage and therefore the more chance of some of it reaching Object B.
Not true.

First of all, why is a ``wave'' not an ``object''? Second, why does information transfer necessarily imply decoherence?

A more valid way of posing this situation is to ask the question: ``does the presence of object A effect the environment of object B, and if so, how?"

If object A is providing a localizing potential to object B, then yes, object A could be phrased as ``destroying the wavelike behaviour of object B'' (assuming object B was in an environment lacking a localizing potential before object A showed up).

Otherwise, your statement is just trivializing a very general condition.

It seems I have repeated this interminably many times these last few days, but ``wave'' and ``particle'' behaviour are only consequences of an objects' environment. In free space, objects behave as waves. In confinement, objects behave as particles.

In other conditions, objects are neither particles nor waves. An electron in a stable orbital around a hydrogen nucleus is neither a particle nor a wave. An atom in a harmonic potential is neither a particle nor a wave.

Edited by sepulchrave, 02 December 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#147    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,602 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 02 December 2013 - 12:58 PM

View PostAlmagest, on 01 December 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Here's a good rule of thumb; Every time you see or hear someone who isn't a physicist use the word quantum you can safely assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
I know what you are getting at, but it is not hard for a non-physicist to understand what something being quantized means.  The population of a given city is quantized into individual residents.


#148    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,557 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostSilentHunter, on 01 December 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

No, because I know for a fact what you wrote was wrong lmao. The Planck Mass is not 21 micrograms (0.021g) its at the scale of nanograms (0.0000000043kg). Whats funny is the Wiki you linked us too actually tells you that too.
No. The Wiki site agreed with me on the size of the Planck Mass. Or, maybe you can quote the part I got wrong?

Quote

The mistake in your logic is you think mass or size is what determines quantum behaviour. It doesnt. Its information leaking from Object A to Object B. If Object B receives information from Object A then Object A exists as an object to it instead of being a wave. The only way that size has any influence is that the larger the number of atoms involved the more information leakage and therefore the more chance of some of it reaching Object B.
No. My point does not care what size the object is. I was clear several times that the state of the object is not in arguement. I was pointing out that larger then the Planck Mass science (According to the Wiki article) is going to have a hard time PROVING it, Observing the state of the object.

So even if the Moon went into a state like was posted earlier, humans would have no way to observe if it was in such a state, given our current technology. That was my only actual point. How can you observe all the atoms of an object on a scale such as the Moon, or just a office pencil, with today's technology?

Edited by DieChecker, 02 December 2013 - 09:02 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#149    jsowersby

jsowersby

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 86 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "And as he wages his battle, knowing that his will is impeccable, a warrior laughs and laughs." Don Juan Matus

Posted 03 February 2014 - 02:26 AM

Sounds like Quantum Physics is catching up to what the Taoist and Buddhist sages have known for thousands of years. The world is only a reflection of us. We are one and the same with everything else in the universe. An ice cube is never really separate from the ocean, we only perceive it as such with our limited senses.


#150    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 11 February 2014 - 10:45 PM

View PostMetal Head, on 19 November 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

But isn't it true as humans we are the only existing beings on Earth who can even imagine our own death? Consciousness itself is not tangible, it is formless, and only creates thoughts, emotions etc that are also formless. It does not have a physical existence so how can it create a physical Universe? There is no scientific or religious evidence that consciousness leaves the body because there is no way to measure it. It is not tangible.

Death seems to be the absence of consciousness, which makes me think it is similar to unconsciousness. During unconscious states you are unaware of anything around you including your own existence. If the mind is turned off, you have no way of telling whether you are alive or dead, conscious or unconscious, you are just a physical leftover of meat and blood.

Dreams!!!!


I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users