Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RabidMongoose

Quantum Sequencing Paradoxes

58 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RabidMongoose

On the topic of objects not existing in other rooms if no heat is leaking from them to you.

Has anybody ever come across an object that momentarily seemed to be stuck in the state of being multiple outcomes at once? I ask because I have seen that one happen too several times.

It quickly rectifies itself which is the process of quantum decoherence. Seeing it momentarily stuck being multiple outcomes at once is delayed decoherence and yes.... the quantum physics have delayed decoherence experiments too showing people it happening in the laboratory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Quantum decoherence is independent of observers as it's information leaking to the environment.

The wavefunction is a mathematical description of the system.

I recall posters on this forum who have backgrounds in physics correcting you on your fringe theories.  Hasn't changed a thing.

I`m a qualified engineer, anybody can claim anybody is wrong on these forums. It doesnt mean they are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Even worse, who says the contents of the next room in your house even exist?

In practice there is a grey murky area of heat leakage. Some might be making its way from an object in the other room to you despite the wall in which case it exists. If no heat energy is reaching you from it then the object doesnt exist.

That's your fringe interpretation.  In fact something ceasing to exist would violate physics, it can't happen.

 

3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

It instead has become the potential for the object to exist. People automatically reject that as ridiculous as you are about to do. But thats quantum mechanics for you, welcome to crazy!

Quantum mysticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

That's your fringe interpretation.  In fact something ceasing to exist would violate physics, it can't happen.

Quantum mysticism.

How is it supposed to violate physics?

The Uncertainty Principle means no energy has been lost or gained in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

On the topic of objects not existing in other rooms if no heat is leaking from them to you.

Has anybody ever come across an object that momentarily seemed to be stuck in the state of being multiple outcomes at once? I ask because I have seen that one happen too several times.

I wouldn't be surprised if you see pigs fly.

 

7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

It quickly rectifies itself which is the process of quantum decoherence. Seeing it momentarily stuck being multiple outcomes at once is delayed decoherence and yes.... the quantum physics have delayed decoherence experiments too showing people it happening in the laboratory.

You're just making **** up now.  You can't see something in superposition, not even for a moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

How is it supposed to violate physics?

The Uncertainty Principle means no energy has been lost or gained in the universe.

No, the Uncertainty Principle is that an object's position and velocity can not be measured exactly at the same time.

Not really relevant to an object ceasing to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I wouldn't be surprised if you see pigs fly.

 

You're just making **** up now.  You can't see something in superposition, not even for a moment.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5522

http://faculty.up.edu/schlosshauer/publications/DecoherenceExperimentsSchlosshauer.pdf

Yawn, are you finished yet? Must we go through this every time?

You are right you cannot see something in a superposition of states. The act of observation collapses it (and yet its amazing how only a few posts ago you were claiming observation doesnt have any affect). Your views while wrong arent even coherent with themselves lmao!

Quantum Decoherence is the name of the collapse process.

The larger the object the quicker the speed of the collapse. It is not infinitely fast with objects that are large enough to see with your eyes and delayed decoherence experiments slow down the collapse. And yes, they can slow it down so much you can witness the collapse process going on.

In that process the object being observed goes from being stuck in multiple states to one very quickly.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No, the Uncertainty Principle is that an object's position and velocity can not be measured exactly at the same time.

Not really relevant to an object ceasing to exist.

I give up, you have no understanding of what you are talking about lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Haha. Wow, did you bother to read it?  The times given refute your claims of seeing decoherence occurring.

 

Quote

You are right you cannot see something in a superposition of states. The act of observation collapses it (and yet its amazing how only a few posts ago you were claiming observation doesnt have any affect). Your views while wrong arent even coherent with themselves lmao!

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say observation has no effect?  Observation at quantum scales is interaction.

 

Quote

Quantum Decoherence is the name of the collapse process.

The larger the object the quicker the speed of the collapse. It is not infinitely fast with objects that are large enough to see with your eyes and delayed decoherence experiments slow down the collapse. And yes, they can slow it down so much you can witness the collapse process going on.

In that process the object being observed goes from being stuck in multiple states to one very quickly.

If we go by the paper you linked to, decoherence has been measured at between 20 ns to 4 micro seconds.

But that the object is large it's even faster.  So you can see an object change in less than 20 ns?  You're full of ****.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
16 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I give up, you have no understanding of what you are talking about lol.

That money you wasted on an engineering degree could've been used on improving your reading comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
18 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Haha. Wow, did you bother the read it?  The times given refute your claims of seeing decoherence occurring.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say observation has no effect?  Observation at quantum scales is interaction.

If we go by the paper you linked to, decoherence has been measured at between 20 ns to 4 micro seconds.

But that the object is large it's even faster.  So you can see an object change in less than 20 ns?  You're full of ****.

If you wont read it then how can your views ever be challenged? lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
13 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

That money you wasted on an engineering degree could've been used on improving your reading comprehension.

l like you, you are funny, and you make me laugh.

Even if you have confused ideas about physics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

If you wont read it then how can your views ever be challenged? lmao

You might want to read it again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
8 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

l like you, you are funny, and you make me laugh.

Even if you have confused ideas about physics!

Says the guy who lives in his own universe.

Please explain how you can see objects changing faster than 20 nanoseconds when you earlier said your brain can't sequence events faster than 20 milliseconds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Says the guy who lives in his own universe.

Please explain how you can see objects changing faster than 20 nanoseconds when you earlier said your brain can't sequence events faster than 20 milliseconds?

Delayed decoherence means that time is extended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, RabidMongoose said:

Delayed decoherence means that time is extended.

In the experiment it's 20 ns to 4 microseconds.  You're claiming you can see it with your eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

On the topic of objects not existing in other rooms if no heat is leaking from them to you.

Has anybody ever come across an object that momentarily seemed to be stuck in the state of being multiple outcomes at once? I ask because I have seen that one happen too several times.

It quickly rectifies itself which is the process of quantum decoherence. Seeing it momentarily stuck being multiple outcomes at once is delayed decoherence and yes.... the quantum physics have delayed decoherence experiments too showing people it happening in the laboratory.

How are you seeing all this in less than 20 ns?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Quantum decoherence is independent of observers as it's information leaking to the environment.

The wavefunction is a mathematical description of the system.

I recall posters on this forum who have backgrounds in physics correcting you on your fringe theories.  Hasn't changed a thing.

I'm sorry that it upset you to get an answer you didn't want, but that doesnt mean petty attempts to insult my intelligence or the legitimacy of quantum physics will get you anywhere. Ive copied a quote from sciencedaily for you:  "When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. ... In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings."  I hope it doesnt irk you too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

So you can see an object change in less than 20 ns?  You're full of ****.

The max speed of nerve impulses is 100m/second. Means, if we assume that the distance between the ocular fundus and the brain`s viewing centre is 10cm, then it takes the signal 0,001 seconds to arrive. I`m too lazy to do the math now, but if a person claim to recognize the signal within 20ns, which is 0,0000000020sec, then the head of the person must be very very small. :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Nnicolette said:

I'm sorry that it upset you to get an answer you didn't want, but that doesnt mean petty attempts to insult my intelligence or the legitimacy of quantum physics will get you anywhere. Ive copied a quote from sciencedaily for you:  "When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. ... In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings."  I hope it doesnt irk you too much.

Parroting without understanding what you're quoting.

Here's an idea, find out what observation means in quantum physics.  I'll give you a hint, you can't see electrons so it can't mean looking at them.  However specialized devices can detect them, they are the observers. 

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, toast said:

The max speed of nerve impulses is 100m/second. Means, if we assume that the distance between the ocular fundus and the brain`s viewing centre is 10cm, then it takes the signal 0,001 seconds to arrive. I`m too lazy to do the math now, but if a person claim to recognize the signal within 20ns, which is 0,0000000020sec, then the head of the person must be very very small. :lol:

You'll notice RabidMongoose says in the OP "Your brain cannot sequence events that occur within 20ms of each other."

Yet he can observe events quicker than 20ns.. Complete rubbish. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

In the experiment it's 20 ns to 4 microseconds.  You're claiming you can see it with your eyes.

There is no fixed time for delayed quantum decoherence, it depends on the experiment being done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

You'll notice RabidMongoose says in the OP "Your brain cannot sequence events that occur within 20ms of each other."

Yet he can observe events quicker than 20ns.. Complete rubbish. 

20ms is 50 frames per second and yes you can see that.

Although you will struggle separating out individual frames. If your adrenaline is running high (such as during a car crash) you can see each frame and sequence them properly. Ordinarily you cannot.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, RabidMongoose said:

There is no fixed time for delayed quantum decoherence, it depends on the experiment being done. 

More reason why your claim of seeing objects in the process of decoherence is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

More reason why your claim of seeing objects in the process of decoherence is nonsense.

I`m just not going to bother, I cannot be bothered arguing with you. You are taking over this debate with constant arguing over what you know nothing about.

For other people there are plenty of links all over the internet about quantum decoherence and delay experiments if people want to search then check them out.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.