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
Posted (edited)
35 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.

Its a waste of time, he wont listen.

Its too at odds with his worldview. It actually quite a common response in Quantum Mechanics because its experiments and results are crazy.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

I wouldn't have bothered making up the nonsense to begin with.

The paper you linked to even refutes your laughable claim of seeing decoherence.  If they had to delay decoherence in order to measure it, there is no chance you are going to see it happen before your eyes.

Share this post


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

I wouldn't have bothered making up the nonsense to begin with.

The paper you linked to even refutes your laughable claim of seeing decoherence.  If they had to delay decoherence in order to measure it, there is no chance you are going to see it happen before your eyes.

What? The paper you refused to read lmao.

Is this one of your usual claims where you claim something not written in the links? Yes I am used to your tactics lmao.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


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

Its a waste of time, he wont listen.

Its too at odds with his worldview. It actually quite a common response in Quantum Mechanics because its experiments and results are crazy.

It's just as well you don't read them.

Share this post


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

What? The paper you refused to read lmao.

That made no sense.  What paper did I refuse to read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Posted (edited)

So RabidMongoose is now accusing me of lying about the measurement times.

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

From page 4

Quote

From the decay of the envelope we can thus infer the decoherence timescale. Chiorescu et al. [14] measured a characteristic decoherence timescale of 20 ns. Recent experiment have achieved decoherence times of up to 4 µs [15].

 

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2019 at 10:03 AM, Nnicolette said:

It seems your the one whos understanding is falling a bit short. You said is there evidence reality cares what our brains think and i said yes the double slit experiment. Apparently you are not fully familiar. The results of the test indicated that the reality of the results was dependant on human observation. Reality is literally dependant on what we are paying attention to.

That is not quite accurate. The observer effect is not about the observer, but about weather or not information is interacting with something. Robots and computers can collapse wave functions. This actually makes it even more interesting. Why would particles exist in a quasi real state of probability when positional information is not required of it? 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2019 at 10:42 AM, 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.

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!

As mentioned, observers are not needed to collapse wave functions. Even without observation of any kind, the un observed room is still there because it’s gravity needs be added to the earths, an the room is interacting with the rest of the universe in a myriad of ways. However. On small scales when a particle simply is not needed to be apart of reality, it then distributes itself as an algorithm effectively removing itself from our known reality. I find this property of nature striking. It’s a smoking gun of sorts for simulation theory because it proves that fundamental reality is build upon a code of sorts that is mathematically based and conserves processing power. Amazing stuff. 

Edited by White Crane Feather

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.