Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
sean6

Quantum physics proves that there IS an after

152 posts in this topic

Ok yes there is, but within the lifetime of the Universe the odds of it actually happening are essentially zero. The moon is ~1048 atoms. For the moon to be a wave, all of those atoms have to be entangled. This basically won't happen (OK it could, but again the odds are essentially zero), and if it did happen it wouldn't last more than a few femtoseconds.

The entropy of the ``entangled moon'' is so many orders of magnitude greater than the regular ``classical moon'' that the system would almost instantly decohere.

The odds of the Moon behaving as a wave within the lifetime of the universe is not zero but it is low. For the Moon to behave as a wave its atoms dont need to be entangled with each other. What must occur is that no information from it must leak to you.

We both know that the Moon puts out a lot of heat energy into the universe (heat received from the Sun then re-emitted). You would need to be shielded from that. If you were on a satelitte that was always around the other side of the sun to block the Moon emitting heat to you then the chances of it behaving as a wave are significantly higher.

Our meta-materials are only advanced enough to block specific wavelengths of EMR. Still you could construct a chamber with many layers of meta-material to block all EMR reaching you. Then the entire universe outside of the chamber would behave as a wave from your perspective.

When the big bang happen part of the universe went in the opposite direction too us. As the universe is 14-15 billion years old we can only see 14-15 billion light years. The rest of the universe that went in the opposite direction is right now behaving as a wave to us - planets, stars and even galaxy. For that to be wrong information must flow faster than the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok yes there is, but within the lifetime of the Universe the odds of it actually happening are essentially zero.

It still would not be a wave.

The moon is ~1048 atoms. For the moon to be a wave, all of those atoms have to be entangled.

This basically won't happen (OK it could, but again the odds are essentially zero), and if it did happen it wouldn't last more than a few femtoseconds.

The entropy of the ``entangled moon'' is so many orders of magnitude greater than the regular ``classical moon'' that the system would almost instantly decohere.

Considering all 1048 atoms in the moon would have to become entangled simultaneously for even this unbelievably remote chance of it [the moon] behaving as a quantum object before decoherence, the chance of it occurring are even more incredibly remote.

SilentHunter,

For the Moon to behave as a wave its atoms dont need to be entangled with each other. What must occur is that no information from it must leak to you.

No, if we want the Moon to behave as a wave [a quantum object] all atoms in the body must become entangled - be in a harmonic state.

If we are unable to determine any information regarding the state of a quantum object, that does not suggest that object must be a 'wave-object'. Yes, we can only mathematically represent that object as a wave-function, but our representation is not the object itself.

The map is not the territory.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We both know that the Moon puts out a lot of heat energy into the universe (heat received from the Sun then re-emitted). You would need to be shielded from that. If you were on a satelitte that was always around the other side of the sun to block the Moon emitting heat to you then the chances of it behaving as a wave are significantly higher.

Are you forgetting about gravity?

May as well just put your hands over your eyes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odds of the Moon behaving as a wave within the lifetime of the universe is not zero but it is low. For the Moon to behave as a wave its atoms dont need to be entangled with each other. What must occur is that no information from it must leak to you.

We both know that the Moon puts out a lot of heat energy into the universe (heat received from the Sun then re-emitted). You would need to be shielded from that. If you were on a satelitte that was always around the other side of the sun to block the Moon emitting heat to you then the chances of it behaving as a wave are significantly higher.

Our meta-materials are only advanced enough to block specific wavelengths of EMR. Still you could construct a chamber with many layers of meta-material to block all EMR reaching you. Then the entire universe outside of the chamber would behave as a wave from your perspective.

When the big bang happen part of the universe went in the opposite direction too us. As the universe is 14-15 billion years old we can only see 14-15 billion light years. The rest of the universe that went in the opposite direction is right now behaving as a wave to us - planets, stars and even galaxy. For that to be wrong information must flow faster than the speed of light.

Does this not assume no observers/entanglements in that part of the universe to collapse the wave for themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you forgetting about gravity?

May as well just put your hands over your eyes.

While that is a point to consider Rlyeh science still doesnt know what gravity is. We know that objects are attracted to each other, we know formula that describe that attraction on medium scales (not microscopic or galaxtic scales) and our best thinking is that it arises from the curving of spacetime

However it should be pointed out that no gravitons or gravity waves have ever been detected. What that means is that theres absolutely nothing in the model of the atom which is confirmed as existing to account for gravity. Therefore we don't know if a particle is traveling from a to b which could collapse the wavefunction by being a transferral of information.

However, a particle in a dual slit experiment behaves as a wave when not measured. I'm quite sure that particle exists within the effect of the Moons gravity field. That appears to suggest nothing is being emitted from the Moon and reaching the particle to collapse its state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is a point to consider Rlyeh science still doesnt know what gravity is. We know that objects are attracted to each other, we know formula that describe that attraction on medium scales (not microscopic or galaxtic scales) and our best thinking is that it arises from the curving of spacetime

That's not quite the point. You seem to want the moon to behave as a wave while it's gravity is still in effect.
However it should be pointed out that no gravitons or gravity waves have ever been detected. What that means is that theres absolutely nothing in the model of the atom which is confirmed as existing to account for gravity. Therefore we don't know if a particle is traveling from a to b which could collapse the wavefunction by being a transferral of information.
Gravity however has been detected.
However, a particle in a dual slit experiment behaves as a wave when not measured. I'm quite sure that particle exists within the effect of the Moons gravity field. That appears to suggest nothing is being emitted from the Moon and reaching the particle to collapse its state.
We aren't talking about a particle here, we're talking about an object of 1,730+ km in radius with a gravitational field and a weak magnetic field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I read about was that it may be impossible to show that a object can act as a wave if it is larger then the Planck mass. Or was it the Planck size? So, basically molecules and atoms are go, but stuff larger then a flea egg are a no go at present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Wave_behavior_of_large_objects

Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie wavelength is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable; above the Planck mass a particle's Compton wavelength would be smaller than the Planck length and its own Schwarzschild radius, a scale at which current theories of physics may break down or need to be replaced by more general ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

The Planck mass is approximately the mass of the Planck particle, a hypothetical minuscule black hole whose Schwarzschild radius equals the Planck length.

Unlike all other Planck base units and most Planck derived units, the Planck mass has a scale more or less conceivable to humans. It is traditionally said to be about the mass of a flea, but more accurately it is about the mass of a flea egg.

The Planck mass is an idealized mass thought to have special significance for quantum gravity when general relativity and the fundamentals of quantum physics become mutually important to describe mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I read about was that it may be impossible to show that a object can act as a wave if it is larger then the Planck mass. Or was it the Planck size? So, basically molecules and atoms are go, but stuff larger then a flea egg are a no go at present.

http://en.wikipedia....f_large_objects

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Planck_mass

But would that stop it from behaving in a wave if all the atoms were acting as a wave together? Sounds unlikely true

So far the record seems to be just over 800 atoms

http://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/462c39db8e7b

Still a long way from the moon

Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I read about was that it may be impossible to show that a object can act as a wave if it is larger then the Planck mass. Or was it the Planck size? So, basically molecules and atoms are go, but stuff larger then a flea egg are a no go at present.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/2013-11-physicists-quantum-cheshire-cats-paradoxes.html#jCp

Makes you wonder a little...heh!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 10-9kg, which is still on the order of micrograms. A nanogram would be ~10-12 kg.

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.

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''.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!!

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.