The Nature of Reality

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Phenomena must be observed.

No wave function collapse has ever been observed.

Harte

Beat me to it. Lol

[zep73]

We're at the point right now where it's becoming absurd hair-splitting.

When I say the sentense: The man got into the car, ....... it and drove.

Everybody knows that he "started" the car! What else would he do !?

Edited August 31, 2018 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

Quote

Almost 90 years later, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors — which measure wave-like properties — to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect.

Quote: https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-experiment-verifies-nonlocal-wavefunction-collapse-for-a-single-particle/

 

[zep73]

The "photon wave"

Showing the collapse

[Harte]

4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

We're at the point right now where it's becoming absurd hair-splitting.

When I say the sentense: The man got into the car, ....... it and drove.

Everybody knows that he "started" the car! What else would he do !?

Maybe the engine was running already when he got in?

Harte

[Harte]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

The "photon wave"

Showing the collapse

The model of a photon wave collapse.

Harte

Edited September 1, 2018 by Harte

[Carlos Allende]

People don't see the big coincidence in quantum physics. People might think they have a high number of meaningful coincidences in their life, that proves some kind of supernatural element, yet they never quite see the biggest one of all. Let's be honest, as of the 21st century, it's the only area of life that presents the chance for dynamic thinking among the masses. Religion is seen as hackneyed. Even Eastern stuff is far too insular. Culture is trash. Romance is just getting crazily fickle. Kids cry mental illness _before they've even lived._ And as for 'politics' just read 'capitalism'. Quantum physics is our only escape route. Now, I'm not denying that it's a subject that lends itself to waffle. Robert Anton Wilson. Lynne McTaggart --genuine researchers or just pseudo-scientific opportunists? I dunno. Even the noblest, most clinical efforts of making a UTE, in the pages of New Scientist, etc, are just full of endless conjecture. But the _metaphor_ of Schrodinger's Cat. Now there's a thing. On a societal level, none of us are really dead, none of us are really alive. We don't share a lowest common denominator. Even those few people who still work for a living can't conceive of rising up as necessity demands. All political movements are at a deadlock, all religions under attack, we can't even conceive of looking after basic things like healthcare --are you honestly telling me QM isn't in vogue now for a reason, that's it's not the microcosmic trying desperately to apply itself on a macrocosmic and philosophical level?

Anyway, that's my 'Pause for Thought', Chis Evans. Now you can go back to talking about Carfest, and 500 words, and your incessant chasing of a knighthood.

 

[Habitat]

Well Carlos, that might be enough to have me looking at your profile page later !

[zep73]

16 hours ago, Harte said:

The model of a photon wave collapse.

I see a pattern here. You being the cynic and dany applauding you. It's actually quite cute. Can I expect a wedding invitation? 

[Harte]

You wouldn't have to beg for invitations if you'd put some rational thought into what you claim.

For example, a man gets in a car and a few minutes later drives away.

That's your example. In it, you failed to consider either the efficacy of said example, or the existence of possible counterexamples (two of which spring to mind instantly - one of those I gave you.) Or, possibly, you failed to consider both.

Think about what you say. Maybe I'll invite you to our anniversary reception.

Harte

[danydandan]

If he's coming to our wedding..... Then.. it's off.

Also I'm pretty sure Harte and I have a number of conflicting views on a lot of things.

Edited September 1, 2018 by danydandan

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

I see a pattern here. You being the cynic and dany applauding you. It's actually quite cute. Can I expect a wedding invitation? 

You do understand that a wave function is a Mathematical description of observations, you can't observe the abstract world of Mathematics.

[-Nuke-]

On 8/30/2018 at 3:41 AM, danydandan said:

I posted a proof and answer a number of posts after that.

Ok well o don't wanna look at your proof and answer, yet, I wanna see if mine is close on how I got "2" ... number 1s and 3, may work for a very low amount of numbers, but the ones I plugged into my head were far off(the checking was dumb anyway they just sounded bad) but I had to be sure... 2 on the other hand actually had 5/9ths (or maybe it was 5/8ths) idk but it was the only logical answer. To me ... haha so is thst close to ur answer without lookin?

[danydandan]

8 hours ago, -Nuke- said:

Ok well o don't wanna look at your proof and answer, yet, I wanna see if mine is close on how I got "2" ... number 1s and 3, may work for a very low amount of numbers, but the ones I plugged into my head were far off(the checking was dumb anyway they just sounded bad) but I had to be sure... 2 on the other hand actually had 5/9ths (or maybe it was 5/8ths) idk but it was the only logical answer. To me ... haha so is thst close to ur answer without lookin?

Here is a simple proof. By the way the answer is D.

C=5/9(F−32)

or

C=(5/9)F − 5/9(32)

You can see the slope of the graph is 5/9, which means that for an increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit, the increase is 5/9 of 1 degree Celsius.

C=5/9(F)

C=5/9(1) = 5/9

Thus, statement I is true. This is the like saying that an increase of 1 degree C is equal to an increase of 9/5 degrees F.

C=5/9(F)

1=5/9(F)

(F)=9/5

Since 9/5 = 1.8, statement II is true.

The only answer that has both statement I and statement II as true is D, but if you want be thorough, you can see if statement III (an increase of 5/9 degree Fahrenheit is equal to a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius) is true:

C=5/9(F)

C=5/9(59)

C=25/81(whichis≠1)

An increase of 5/9 degree F leads to an increase of 25/81, not 1 degree, C, and so Statement III is not true.

Edit: apologise for the crappy equations I'm using my phone so can't do fractions. 5/9 is 5 over 9.

[zep73]

On 1/9/2018 at 8:31 PM, Harte said:

That's your example. In it, you failed to consider either the efficacy of said example, or the existence of possible counterexamples (two of which spring to mind instantly - one of those I gave you.) Or, possibly, you failed to consider both.

I tried to make it obvious. I obviously failed 

 

On 1/9/2018 at 8:55 PM, danydandan said:

You do understand that a wave function is a Mathematical description of observations, you can't observe the abstract world of Mathematics.

Okay. What is the name of the phenomenon itself? If it's not "the collapse of the wave function", what is it then? "The measurement effect"?

Edited September 2, 2018 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

On 1/9/2018 at 2:49 AM, Harte said:

The model of a photon wave collapse.

Btw, I am aware that particles cannot be photographed 

[Harte]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I tried to make it obvious. I obviously failed 

 

Okay. What is the name of the phenomenon itself? If it's not "the collapse of the wave function", what is it then? "The measurement effect"?

Duality is the word that is usually used.

Harte

[Harte]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Btw, I am aware that particles cannot be photographed 

Aye, there's the rub.

Harte

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

Duality is the word that is usually used.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

"The nature of reality is that reality is real" Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[StarMountainKid]

31 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

"The nature of reality is that reality is real" Noteverythingisaconspiracy

"The nature of reality is invisible, and cannot be comprehended by the conscious mind."  

Take your pick. 

[StarMountainKid]

I think everyone has one question they want answered, and I would guess it's in some form of, "What is the nature of reality?"

I also think it's an unanswerable question. Science may one day be able to explain the complete mechanism of reality, but the fundamental question underlying the mechanism will remain. 

[zep73]

On 3/9/2018 at 2:01 AM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

"The nature of reality is that reality is real" Noteverythingisaconspiracy

In science there are no certainties, only theories and probabilities. A true sceptic is not afraid to question anything, even reality itself.

 

On 3/9/2018 at 2:36 AM, StarMountainKid said:

cannot be comprehended

On 3/9/2018 at 8:15 PM, StarMountainKid said:

it's an unanswerable question

Currently yes. But never underestimate the future. Like this guy

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Harte]

Take your own advice then.

A "true skeptic" should question what he himself has stated.

Harte

[StarMountainKid]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

 

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 7:36 PM, StarMountainKid said:

cannot be comprehended

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:15 PM, StarMountainKid said:

it's an unanswerable question

Currently yes. But never underestimate the future. Like this guy

As an example, we can understand the mechanism of our reality, but because we are part of this reality ourselves, our knowledge will always be limited to this mechanism (which includes us). 

If there exists anything beyond or external to the mechanism, this will remain unknowable to us. 

What may be external to our reality may be inaccessible to the capabilities to the human mind. There may be no comprehension possible to our intellect. 

We are the internal universe observing itself, limited in understanding by being part of this internal mechanism. It's like the old example of the clockwork of a clock. The clockwork understands the clockwork because it is the clockwork. The purpose of the clock and what lies external to the clock is unknowable to the clockwork. The  clockwork only knows itself, only knows its own mechanism.