Where do athiests think we came from?

[Coffey]

I've watched it before.

You seem to be under the impression observe or measurement is simply looking at it, which is false.

4:15

And in order to observe something so small you must interact with it. The specimen is bombarded with electrons.

This is even how electron microscopes work.

They put a camera there to record it... How is that interacting? lol

As for at 4.15 it clearly says measuring or observing. It does not say it's interfering or interacting.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Those have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about, please study physics and Biology better before attempting to post your opinion as facts.

I am a biologist, son. I work in an academic setting and I have been studying physics and biology since before you had an opinion. You just like all the rest who read a book or two and think that they know everything about a subject. You make wild assertions based upon incomplete facts and you cling to the most fringe of theories. You insist that your misunderstanding must be representative of the whole of the scientific community because if you can't understand it, ,then surely none one else can and it must be unexplained.

Please take the time to speak or spend time with some actual scientists, biologists or physicists, before prattling on about things that you do not understand.

[Rlyeh]

They put a camera there to record it... How is that interacting? lol

He said they put a recording device.

As for at 4.15 it clearly says measuring or observing. It does not say it's interfering or interacting.

Affects the result.

You still haven't answered how you can observe something you can't see.

The scientific papers have the particles hitting the detectors in order to "observe" or measure.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Nope, but then you support my statement?

You might want to review the structure of the delayed choice quantum eraser there Rlyeh... Because yet again you are talking out of your butt.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#section_3

"In the process they learned that constraining the path taken by one of a pair of entangled photons inevitably controls the path taken by the partner photon. Further, if the partner photon is sent through a double-slit device and thus interferes with itself, then very surprisingly the first photon will also behave in a way consistent with its having interfered with itself, even though there is no double-slit device in its way."

"interference pattern when which-path information is obtained, even if this information was obtained without directly observing the original photon"

[Rlyeh]

You might want to review the structure of the delayed choice quantum eraser there Rlyeh... Because yet again you are talking out of your butt.

I've already read the scientific paper thank you.

Maybe you want to read what I said, again;

"Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it."

Now even in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment the entangled twin is observed by hitting the detector.

The time you could save if you just learnt to read.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

They put a camera there to record it... How is that interacting? lol

As for at 4.15 it clearly says measuring or observing. It does not say it's interfering or interacting.

The detector must use some sort of light to interact with the photon. But this dosnt stop scientists from observing its entangled twin which makes it not directly interacting with the photon. They have also shown by using a a randomization process on different detectors some of which still detect but erase the information that the effect has nothing to do with interaction and everything to do with wether the information CAN be obtained or not.

This kid does a good job of explaining some of this.

[Rlyeh]

The detector must use some sort of light to interact with the photon.

Wait.. You know light are photons right?

But this dosnt stop scientists from observing its entangled twin which makes it not directly interacting with the photon.

It is kind of obvious they however are interacting with the twin.

[White Crane Feather]

I've already read the scientific paper thank you.

Maybe you want to read what I said, again;

"Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it."

Now even in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment the entangled twin is observed by hitting the detector.

The time you could save if you just learnt to read.

No one was talking about when the pattern was observed or not. That's not the observation in question. It's the information gain at the detector. The entangled twin can be "observed" in another room, across the galaxy or even after its twin has already completed its trip through the experiment... Essentially in the future.

[White Crane Feather]

Wait.. You know light are photons right?

It is kind of obvious they however are interacting with the twin.

Yes... No argument there. But the interaction is not what causes the collapse... It has to do with if information is gained or not. That's why it's called the QUANTUM ERASER because the information is ERASED even though the detectors still interact with the photon. This rules out the detectors themselves being the cuprite of wave collapse. It's the entire point of the experiment. I thought you read the paper

Edited November 30, 2012 by Seeker79

[Rlyeh]

No one was talking about when the pattern was observed or not. That's not the observation in question. It's the information gain at the detector. The entangled twin can be "observed" in another room, across the galaxy or even after its twin has already completed its trip through the experiment... Essentially in the future.

Right. The entangled twin takes the opposite spin of the other, so if you know (or measure) the spin of one you know the other.

How does this refute my statement?

Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Right. The entangled twin takes the opposite spin of the other, so if you know (or measure) the spin of one you know the other.

How does this refute my statement?

The photon in question is not interacting with any detectors. It's twin is.

You also seem to be suggesting that it's the physical interaction that causes collapse. This has been ruled out.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Seeker79

[Rlyeh]

Yes... No argument there. But the interaction is not what causes the collapse... It has to do with if information is gained or not. That's why it's called the QUANTUM ERASER because the information is ERASED even though the detectors still interact with the photon.

The eraser is the path it takes. If it takes D1 or D2 there is no way to detect if it came from A or B.

[Rlyeh]

The photon in question is not interacting with any detectors. It's twin is.

You are ignoring they are both in the same quantum state.

[Coffey]

The detector must use some sort of light to interact with the photon. But this dosnt stop scientists from observing its entangled twin which makes it not directly interacting with the photon. They have also shown by using a a randomization process on different detectors some of which still detect but erase the information that the effect has nothing to do with interaction and everything to do with wether the information CAN be obtained or not.

This kid does a good job of explaining some of this.

[media=]

[/media]

Ah I see, thanks for the explanation and video.

I am a biologist, son. I work in an academic setting and I have been studying physics and biology since before you had an opinion. You just like all the rest who read a book or two and think that they know everything about a subject. You make wild assertions based upon incomplete facts and you cling to the most fringe of theories. You insist that your misunderstanding must be representative of the whole of the scientific community because if you can't understand it, ,then surely none one else can and it must be unexplained.

Please take the time to speak or spend time with some actual scientists, biologists or physicists, before prattling on about things that you do not understand.

I do actually have a close friend who is an exceptional physicist. I also know many scientists working in different fields, including biology.

Do you have evidence that cna prove your claim of being a biologist?

You still haven't answered how you can observe something you can't see.

The scientific papers have the particles hitting the detectors in order to "observe" or measure.

By recording you can observe later on. That way you didn't see it happen.

[Rlyeh]

By recording you can observe later on. That way you didn't see it happen.

Unbelievable. After the video explains the recording device was doing the measuring/observing, you go and say this ^

Not to mention it has already been pointed out we (humans) can't see something so small. There wouldn't be much point for electron microscopes if we could see sub-atomic particles.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[freetoroam]

Not so. I don't believe tectonic plates move due to deep mantle processes yet if you disproved it, I'd want to know about it.

I think the key difference here is I require proof before making any assertion. You evidently do not.

I am not required to prove anything as I have only stated a belief. As you are the one making a 'factual' statement, the onus is on you to provide proof. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You were the one who said god definitely does not exist. Now prove it or that is simply a belief.

I say again (with a revision courtesy of Arbenol68): Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Yep, you are on a wind up.....no body can be that stooopid!

[Setton]

Not even the most highly respected atheists say that god 'absolutely cannot' exist, just that there's no good reason to think he does.

The highly respected ones don't (else they wouldn't be respected for long). Unfortunately some ill-informed atheists do try to argue that (see earlier in this very topic). Anyone with any grounding in science or critical thinking knows this is a ridiculous claim but this particular brand of atheist does as much damage to atheists as a group as lunatic fundamentalists do to theists.

Yep, you are on a wind up.....no body can be that stooopid!

Sadly, your infantile attempts at insulting me (and any scientist worth the name) do not change the fact that you plainly have no grounding in either science or critical thinking. Go away. Read. Educate yourself. Then come back and we can take this up again.

[freetoroam]

Sadly, your infantile attempts at insulting me (and any scientist worth the name) do not change the fact that you plainly have no grounding in either science or critical thinking. Go away. Read. Educate yourself. Then come back and we can take this up again.

Are you still here? so where is the proof i asked you for?

you are talking rubbish and you know it. Come back with proof that he can exist and then we can take this up again....so go on, pack your rucksack and go look for it.

ps: i am not an atheist, so do not confuse me with one.

Edited November 30, 2012 by freetoroam

[Setton]

Are you still here? so where is the proof i asked you for?

you are talking rubbish and you know it. Come back with proof that he can exist and then we can take this up again....so go on, pack your rucksack and go look for it.

Yes.... Clearly the one talking rubbish is the one backed up by several other posters and respected scientists. The one rambling away on her own must be right...

Last try: I am not making any claims. Therefore, I do not need any proof. You made a claim. Now prove it or retract it. Or educate yourself. Preferably the latter actually. I'm not interested in 'winning' an argument with you. I'd just like people to stop labouring under these misconceptions.

[freetoroam]

Yes.... Clearly the one talking rubbish is the one backed up by several other posters and respected scientists. The one rambling away on her own must be right...

Last try: I am not making any claims. Therefore, I do not need any proof. You made a claim. Now prove it or retract it. Or educate yourself. Preferably the latter actually. I'm not interested in 'winning' an argument with you. I'd just like people to stop labouring under these misconceptions.

The claim i made was that there is NO PROOF that god exists and you have asked me to prove that??? are you having up my back? You need the education if you can not understand that there IS NO proof ....end off.

[Mr Right Wing]

The eraser is the path it takes. If it takes D1 or D2 there is no way to detect if it came from A or B.

Non-Duality

If you take a block of marble and chip away at it you can produce a statue from a finite amount of possibilities. The original block of marble is called a non-duality (its means not more than one). When you've chipped at it you're left with two things which are a statue (the being) and the stuff removed (non-being) and this is now called a duality (two things).

Multiverse

The multiverse is a non-duality of potential universes unifed together. When the non-duality collapses you get a duality consisting of a reality (the being) and the stuff that was removed (the non-being). The correct term for the non-duality in physics is a wavefunction.

Dual-Slit Experiment

When no measurement is occuring you have a wavefunction (non-duality) and when information is gained it decays through decoherence into a particle (the being) and the stuff that was removed (the non-being). A wavefunction has no substance its just an equation describing possibilities unifed into one formula.

How Probabilities Work

If you gain information on a probability you destroy it and leave an outcome. A wavefunction is just a probability equation and when you gain information on it you destroy it leaving an outcome. The universe (the being) only exists because I'm gaining information on it. Once I stop gaining information on it then iit unifies back with the non-being into a multiverse (or if you prefer a non-duality).

My non-dualist stance is that I am God. By gaining information I bring into existance this reality by excluding the non-being. Thus I am the creator. 'I am God' may sound like an ego gone mad but thats because its misleading. Non-duality is the totality of everything or as they call it in Buddhism oneness. The seperateness of me and you as humans, as well as all objects, is nothing more than an illusion.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Setton]

The claim i made was that there is NO PROOF that god exists and you have asked me to prove that??? are you having up my back? You need the education if you can not understand that there IS NO proof ....end off.

Your claim:

my answer is the same as the likes I have clipped above,

One thing i can most certainly definately tell you is where we did not come from....god. IMO

Kindly back it up. I'm getting bored now

Also, please quote my claim if you want me to provide proof.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Setton

[Coffey]

Non-Duality

If you take a block of marble and chip away at it you can produce a statue from a finite amount of possibilities. The original block of marble is called a non-duality (its means not more than one). When you've chipped at it you're left with two things which are a statue (the being) and the stuff removed (non-being) and this is now called a duality (two things).

Multiverse

The multiverse is a non-duality of potential universes unifed together. When the non-duality collapses you get a duality consisting of a reality (the being) and the stuff that was removed (the non-being). The correct term for the non-duality in physics is a wavefunction.

Dual-Slit Experiment

When no measurement is occuring you have a wavefunction (non-duality) and when information is gained it decays through decoherence into a particle (the being) and the stuff that was removed (the non-being). A wavefunction has no substance its just an equation describing possibilities unifed into one formula.

How Probabilities Work

If you gain information on a probability you destroy it and leave an outcome. A wavefunction is just a probability equation and when you gain information on it you destroy it leaving an outcome. The universe (the being) only exists because I'm gaining information on it. Once I stop gaining information on it then iit unifies back with the non-being into a multiverse (or if you prefer a non-duality).

My non-dualist stance is that I am God. By gaining information I bring into existance this reality by excluding the non-being. Thus I am the creator. 'I am God' may sound like an ego gone mad but thats because its misleading. Non-duality is the totality of everything or as they call it in Buddhism oneness. The seperateness of me and you as humans, as well as all objects, is nothing more than an illusion.

Very well put.

[freetoroam]

Your claim:

Kindly back it up. I'm getting bored now

Also, please quote my claim if you want me to provide proof.

if you are disputing my claim then thats means that your do not think it is right, so you must think the opposite, hence: there is no proof that god exists, you do not agree because you ask for proof, so i ask you for proof that he does? are you getting it now????

Your getting bored, all i can say is ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Setton]

if you are disputing my claim then thats means that your do not think it is right, so you must think the opposite, hence: there is no proof that god exists, you do not agree because you ask for proof, so i ask you for proof that he does? are you getting it now????

Your getting bored, all i can say is ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*sigh*

Your claim is that we definitely did not come from god. I disagree. My actual claim would be that we don't know. My proof of that: ask anyone. Again, get your facts straight. And don't put words in my mouth. There are more than 2 positions on any topic.

I repeat: Now back up yours. Last chance.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Setton