Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfxxg2 wrote

Reply to comment by SomeTimeBeforeNever in Discussion: the goal of human existence should be avoiding the heat death of the universe by Mickeymousse1

I know the double slit experiment. The results would be the same if there was no observer at the end of the machine that measured the electrons. It's not the conscience that changed the result but the act of measuring the activity of the electrons

3

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcfzl2x wrote

I don't agree. The experiment proved photons produce a scatter plot when there's no observer, aka a wave pattern, and when there is an observer, the photon strikes the same point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyP80vLos60 this video has commentary by Dr. James Gates, one of the most brilliant physicists who's ever lived because he discovered computer code created by Claude Shannon that's used in today's internet browsers in his string theory equations.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg39xi wrote

There is no discussion.

Humans are seeing what the machines capture

The act of capturing the electrons data changed their behavior.

If it was the intent of the conscience that was changing the electrons behavior staring really hard at it and fully believing it would change anything would produce different results, which it doesn't

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcg6u03 wrote

I don't think you understand.

When there is a human observer, the machine records the photons hitting the same point over and over again.

When there is no human observer, the machine records the photons hitting multiple points and they ultimately form a scatter plot, which is a visualization of the quantum wave function of probability.

The experiment shows that reality is simultaneously tangible and probabilistic and consciousness is inextricable from physical reality. When you remove conscious observation from physical reality, physical reality collapses into a quantum wave function of probability.

You're right, there is no discussion. you either understand the physics, or you don't.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcgft26 wrote

the duality only shows up when the individual photon passing through the slit is measured

When there is no measurement on the individual photons it behaves as a wave and when there is it behaves as an individual particle.

Nothing to do with conscience

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcgm57i wrote

Conscious observer is the differentiating variable. Everything else is the same. The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured. The experiment is the photon being shot in the same way at the same place with and without a conscious observer.

When there is no conscious observer it behaves differently and produces a scatter plot in the measurements. When there is a conscious observer, it strikes the same place over and over.

You should read more about the experiment it’s very interesting. If you don’t understand the experiment there’s really nothing left to discuss here.

1

grundar t1_jcgti4j wrote

> The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured.

That is not accurate:
> "In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons, pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other, and no interference will be seen. Conversely, if neither is checked, a photon will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, acting like a wave."

The classical double-slit experiment -- as well as the beam-splitter and atomic variants discussed in the article -- have additional measurement in one condition vs. the other:
> "Truscott’s team found that when the second laser pulse was not applied, the probability of the atom being detected in each of the momentum states was 0.5, regardless of the phase lag between the two. However, application of the second pulse produced a distinct sine-wave interference pattern."

i.e., there is a human observer in both cases, but there is more manipulation of the photon in one case than the other case. As a result, the difference is the different manipulation, not the presence of an observer.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcgzjnn wrote

I'm not sure how to respond to this because it doesn't disprove the findings of the double slit experiment.

From the article:

"Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity."

The presence of an observer is necessary to experience the world. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

No it doesn't. Sound is the result of the disturbance of a medium, usually air, oscillating between 40 and 40,000 hz striking our eardrum, which sends a signal to our brain that produces the sensation of sound. If the puffs of air were oscillating below 40 and above 40,000, we'd hear nothing. There's nothing intrinsically different between 40 hz and 20 hz, but only 40 hz produces sound.

Same thing with light. Photons between 4 and 7 nanometers striking our optic nerve send a signal to the brain to produce the image. Photos below 4 and above 7 wouldn't produce an image.

Our universe is fine tuned for life and our consciousness is inextricable from it because it's part of it. We aren't separate from anything, we're part of a dynamic cosmic process.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jch3635 wrote

The conditions change when the photon is being individually measured, that's why ONLY when they are being individually measured ( not through conscientious observation) the results change. There's no time travel involved

1

grundar t1_jchv7zx wrote

> I'm not sure how to respond to this because it doesn't disprove the findings of the double slit experiment.

It's an article explaining those experiments; of course it doesn't "disprove" them. The point is that it shows your understanding of them is flawed.

In particular, it clarifies that the difference is the measurement, not the observer. Note what you originally said:
> Conscious observer is the differentiating variable. Everything else is the same. The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured.

And note what you just quoted:
> "Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made."

So the differentiating variable is the details of the measurement, either when/where it's measured (before/after passing through the slits) or how often it's measured (second beam splitter). There is no difference in the presence of the conscious observer; contrary to what you were saying, the article clarifies that that is not the differentiating variable.

> The presence of an observer is necessary to experience the world. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? > > No it doesn't. Sound is the result of the disturbance of a medium, usually air, oscillating between 40 and 40,000 hz striking our eardrum, which sends a signal to our brain that produces the sensation of sound.

You're essentially begging the question here by using a definition of "sound" that is not valid for physics:
> "In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain."

It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jckamjw wrote

No, the sound example shows how the universe is fined tuned for life.

Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum. It’s a pretty straight forward concept: Prior to meeting an ear drum, sound is rapid little puffs of air and when those little puffs of air meet an ear drum, then we have what is known as sound.

What’s the difference between 40 and 30 hz? Nothing except one produces an experience of sound inside of our minds and other does not. If there is no ear, there is no sound, only puffs of air.

The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html

Whether I understand the nuances of the experiment is irrelevant to understanding the concept, so my bad, I didn’t mean to caught up in a discussion on that but I have yet to see anything that debunk the observer effect.

1

grundar t1_jckoe1f wrote

> > It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".
>
> Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum.

That is incorrect if you're trying to do physics.

I get that you like the idea of the presence of a mind being necessary for something to be "sound", but that is literally wrong in a physics context. It's not even a matter of opinion, that's just not how the word "sound" is defined for use in physics.

> The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon

From that link:
> "The observer in this experiment was not human. Instead, they used a tiny electron detector that could spot the presence of passing electrons. The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."

i.e., the key is not "an observer" in the "conscious agent" sense, but rather detection or measurement in the "physically interacts with the system" sense. That article says exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along, which is that the difference is measurement, not a conscious observer.

Again, you're getting hung up on definitions of words that are not correct for a physics context. "Observer" does not imply that there is someone doing the observing; it just means measurement is occurring.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcktg4b wrote

"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid."

Sound is the RESULT of vibrations that propagate as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid, or solid making contact with your eardrum between 40 and 40,000 hz. Again, if the frequencies are below or above that range, there is no sound.

How can there be sound if no one can hear it? That's paradoxical and defies logic. Using a general term to describe both vibrations that can and can't be experienced by a human ear is imprecise. You can call puffs of air that can't be heard by a human ear "sound" all day long, it's wrong. There is obviously no sound because you can't describe what you can't hear. You can't describe the intervals, the notes, the tones, the timber, etc.

I'm not arguing the narrow and imprecise physics definition of sound. It's not a debate.

1