Does quantum mechanics reveal that life is but a dream?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

@onlookerofmayhem @psyche101

I think it's important to remember that no one knows why QM behaves like it does. No one knows why there is an observer effect. No one knows how entangled particles are connected over distance. No one knows how the same particle can be in two states at the same time.

Hey zep

Did you watch the video? Its saying an observer doesn't have to be conscious or sentient. He is not saying he understands QM, but relaying the models into more understandable terms so the average person has a better grasp of these terms in physics. 

I've heard professor Carroll day we don't know everything more than once. He's not a presumptuous fellow by any means. Are you familiar with his work? 

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

Interpretation is a human thing. We are all entitled to our own, as long as we know what we're dealing with. As long as you know the rules of the game, your interpretation is as good as any hot shot scientist's. Relying on someone with a good reputation for the ultimate answers, is selling yourself - and nature itself - short.

I wouldn't say that. Professor Carroll is on the leading edge of physics. It would be egotistical to compete myself, or you to him. He has dedicated a lifetime to the study of physics which definitely makes his interpretation the most likely truths. 

As I say, he is very good at dumbing down physics for us laymen. That's where he shines. 

I don't suppose you have seen the Brian Greene docos I mentioned? They too are explaining how to grasp the science more so than the science itself. It's a good approach. 

There are quite a few names now bringing physics to the interested. Nobody needs to restrict themselves to any single source.

[zep73]

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Hey zep

Did you watch the video? Its saying an observer doesn't have to be conscious or sentient. He is not saying he understands QM, but relaying the models into more understandable terms so the average person has a better grasp of these terms in physics. 

I've heard professor Carroll day we don't know everything more than once. He's not a presumptuous fellow by any means. Are you familiar with his work? 

I wouldn't say that. Professor Carroll is on the leading edge of physics. It would be egotistical to compete myself, or you to him. He has dedicated a lifetime to the study of physics which definitely makes his interpretation the most likely truths. 

As I say, he is very good at dumbing down physics for us laymen. That's where he shines. 

I don't suppose you have seen the Brian Greene docos I mentioned? They too are explaining how to grasp the science more so than the science itself. It's a good approach. 

There are quite a few names now bringing physics to the interested. Nobody needs to restrict themselves to any single source.

We basically agree, except the crossed over part. You are giving him too much credit. He's only human.

Will check out Greene when I get time. If I remember it.

 

Edit: Ah, I know Greene! I'm just not good with putting names to faces always.

Edited February 24, 2022 by zep73

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, zep73 said:

We basically agree, except the crossed over part. You are giving him too much credit. He's only human.

Not at all. Professor Carroll makes a point of factoring that in. 

What he has his head is far more concerning physics than anyone on this board. And most of the world. It's pure dedication as opposed to ego. He has no problem admitting that there is much to learn. 

15 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Will check out Greene when I get time. If I remember it.

Definitely worth it. 

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not at all. Professor Carroll makes a point of factoring that in. 

What he has his head is far more concerning physics than anyone on this board. And most of the world. It's pure dedication as opposed to ego. He has no problem admitting that there is much to learn. 

Definitely worth it. 

I like Carroll - and Greene! They are well spoken, well educated and very smart people. I enjoy to watch them, like you do.

But neither of them would like you to idolize them. Just saying.

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I like Carroll - and Greene! They are well spoken, well educated and very smart people. I enjoy to watch them, like you do.

But neither of them would like you to idolize them. Just saying.

Idolize and respect aren't the same thing. Because I can name quite a few I wouldn't call it idolisation of anything more than the natural world. There are quite a few very smart people, and I recognise that they have a better grasp on the subject than most. I'm an electrical engineer. I engineer quite large projects. I don't think laymen could offer credible or useful information in that regard. I've dedicated decades to the field. It's the same thing here. These guys can teach me a lot. In that respect I certainly recognise their work as the best there is to consider. 

That's why they sharpen the cutting edge of knowledge. Nothing wrong with admiring that sort of dedication. And each have a field they specialise in. So no one source can be the be all end all. However those who make the grade do so for a reason.

But these guys in question are more translating science talk to average speak anyway. Again, I don't see how people like you or I could improve on that method, can you? 

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

It should be highly doable, and an experiment to determine the threshold of consciousness in various things seems like it would be important.

It's obvious enough, that if consciousness was a factor, you'd think someone would have already done it.


As far as I'm aware — the reason we're not reading about it, is that the results of that experiment are always the same.

In short — the interference pattern stops, whenever the detectors start detecting — no matter who/what's in that room, to hear the Bings and Bongs.

I believe that's because it's the detection mechanism itself which causes the quantum wave to decohere.

Because there's no such thing as passive observation at the quantum level.

It's a bit like trying to measure the position of a football by bouncing footballs off it.


TL/DR: The act of measurement changes the thing being measured.

 

How is the camera in the double-slot video I presented not passive?? Where does it throw footballs? 

[Tiggs]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

How is the camera in the double-slot video I presented not passive?? Where does it throw footballs? 

As far as I understand it, the setup is less camera, more photon detector which they project a stream of photons at — and detect when that stream gets broken.

Either way — a photon bouncing off an electron will change the state of the electron.

[papageorge1]

36 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

As far as I understand it, the setup is less camera, more photon detector which they project a stream of photons at — and detect when that stream gets broken.

Either way — a photon bouncing off an electron will change the state of the electron.

What? The experiment does not PROJECT any stream of photons or that would invalidate the point of the experiment!!

[Tiggs]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What? The experiment does not PROJECT any stream of photons or that would invalidate the point of the experiment!!

So — how do you think the detection works?

[papageorge1]

Just now, Tiggs said:

So — how do you think the detection works?

Passively. Only receives information. 

[Tiggs]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Passively. Only receives information. 

What information?

[papageorge1]

Just now, Tiggs said:

What information?

The type of information any camera receives. Photons from the external world like your cell phone camera receives.

[Tiggs]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The type of information any camera receives. Photons from the external world like your cell phone camera receives.

So, those would be photons bouncing off the electron, right?

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, Tiggs said:

So, those would be photons bouncing off the electron, right?

Right. But why the double-slit experiment is considered baffling is that those same photons are bouncing off the same electrons whether there is an observer or not. So why should an observer cause a different result???? Perhaps watch the video I supplied.

[onlookerofmayhem]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

"Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.^[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.^[4][5][6]"

 

[Tiggs]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Right. But why the double-slit experiment is considered baffling is that those same photons are bouncing off the same electrons whether there is an observer or not.

Photons from where? Do you think that the scientists — knowing that a photon interacts with an electron — are leaving the lights on?

[papageorge1]

13 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Photons from where? Do you think that the scientists — knowing that a photon interacts with an electron — are leaving the lights on?

Those details I don't know. I do know some of the brightest minds are conducting these experiments and they have no explanation for the results as to why an observer affects things. 

[zep73]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

"Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.^[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.^[4][5][6]"

 

Yeah I know that quote. That is an opinion, not a fact. It has also been contested in the article discussion. An example of bias on Wikipedia.  The truth is that nobody knows for sure.
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment suggests the opposite, namely that if you put the results in envelopes that only people can read, it also 'collapses' the wave state.

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

That is an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, zep73 said:

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment suggests the opposite, namely that if you put the results in envelopes that only people can read, it also 'collapses' the wave state.

That sounds like something Tom Campbell made up.

[onlookerofmayhem]

45 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

That sounds like something Tom Campbell made up.

The "My Big Toe" guy?

[Rlyeh]

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

The "My Big Toe" guy?

Yeah.  He tried to pretend it was an actual experiment.  

[zep73]

14 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I agree with her. It doesn't rewrite the past.
She is debunking some of the extreme interpretations of the experiment, but not the point of it. To determine what causes the 'collapse'.

 

7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

That sounds like something Tom Campbell made up.

Campbell is too woo for me. All I'm saying is that we don't know for sure what causes the 'collapse'. To blame it on instruments is just as far out as it is to blame it on consciousness. The duality itself is far out.

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by zep73

[determinism]

No it doesn't. Whichever way you look at it you can't deny the primacy of Matter.