Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
clouds of an electron's probability
#1
in the famous double slit experiment, an unusual feature of the quantum realm was 'observed'.
The laws there are different than the laws in this Newtonian realm, yet, in their own way, are just as strict and reliable.

Can a particle be in two places at once? Not really. We can only observe them one at a time.
What about a wave?
Observing a wave is less pin-point.

It's probabilities seem to be endless.
What happens in the quadruple slit experiment?
The 1000 slit experiment?

Here's a thought:
What if an electron has the option to be involved in a variety of atoms, simultaneously?
Atoms that are involved in expressing different elements?

Could this electron over here, presently being part of a hydrogen atom, also be potentially involved in being part of a carbon atom over there? In that parallel universe?

I don't see why not.

If so, how might we observe it?
Doing so would necessitate the collapse of this observational probability.
And along with it, the collapse of the devices used in the observation.

We can have it both ways...but not simultaneously. Time has sequence. At least in this particular perceptual probability field.
In a different version, perhaps different rules come into play.
How will we know?

I think i can explain this.
Reply
#2
Are you building a time machine? [Image: smiling-smiley-emoticon.gif]
Reply
#3
(05-23-2017, 08:59 AM)stanky Wrote:  If so, how might we observe it?

No idea, but I have my money on the CERN LHC scientists figuring it out long before any of us.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#4
Aren't all machines time machines?

The new time machine won't be about travel through time, rather it will be about tunneling into a pre-existing probability...a parallel universe, if you will. The tools will be perception and consciousness, fortified with the knowledge of the possibility and the intent to venture.
Why fantasize re-living the past if you could instead 'travel', via perception, to an entirely different universe? And return, if you wanted.

Preposterous as this may sound, all manner of new scientific understanding is colluding in a way that may allow a new metaphor that might liberate our thought in its insistence on the limits of perception.
The quantum realm; all the sub-units of reality that combine to make the atomic realm we are part of, are also allowed to be involved in an entirely different configuration. We already know that our observations determine the state of particles; quite possibly in a creative way.

We know almost nothing about consciousness itself...not enough to declare that it can't exist as an energy field.
Now that it is fairly evident that quantum effects are at the core of life processes; in the electron jump that occurs in photosynthesis as well as in cellular respiration via the catalytic action of enzyme molecules, we can begin to embrace the unseen universe in a more personal way.
Reply
#5
It's not so much about believing; rather it's about not being shackled by belief. Which is where we are now.
Reply
#6
Quote: The new time machine won't be about travel through time, rather it will be about tunneling into a pre-existing probability...a parallel universe, if you will.

Oh bugger. Sad   I was planning on a jaunt back to Sydney around 1990 to buy up some real estate.
Reply
#7
Did you ever consider that you'd make a horrible rich person?

What about going back to kill Hitler?
That's a popular time travel fantasy.

Our fantasies tend to be about violence and money. Or so i've heard.
It would be grand to have a data base of everyone's time travel fantasy.
Then, we could extrapolate.
We'd see how we got here.

What do you want to be when you grow up, little Johnny?
(Um, anything fantastic, completely ignoring the odds, sir. In lieu of that, an average schmoe, i suppose. Now leave me alone.)

Who were you in your past life, Ms. Judy? Were you someone very awesome, or a run of the mill schleb?
(Fuck off sir, I don't believe in reincarnation. What are you, anyway? A fucking Scorpio?)

The concept of shifting universes, on purpose, is radically different than the notions of coming back to this one via a Hindu-like belief...or even lingering longer in this one via time travel. Both are trivial; fanciful...but they do expose our bent, even if it is the wooiest flavor.
Yet, it's not even close to wooie enough. Somehow, intergalactic space craft in sci-fi stories and movies is a reasonable fantasy stepping off point. We can picture it, regardless of its unlikeliness.

What we can't really picture (or entertain) is the perceptual shift as a gateway into alternate simultaneous universes wherein the 'me' of that fantasy is absolutely non tangible, much less anthropomorphic.

Even the notion of heaven and hell; afterlife; for those that cling to that imaginitive bit, they see themselves as a human in the clouds or the dungeon, with arms and legs and such.

The notion of imagining our selves as a cluster of energy fields, held together by intent, is simply not acceptable.
Even if it turns out that's exactly what we are.

We are under a spell of our collective making. We see probability fields as if they were real and solid objects, prone to the rules of objects within that choice.

To stretch out from that is not only threatening, it is blasphemous. We have faith in these nuts and bolts we call home. And they are plenty real, should we insist. and, if we insist really hard, they are assembled in the one and only configuration that they can possibly be assembled in.

yet, as we learn that that isn't really the case any more; that we're swimming in an energy field that contains a variety of probabilities; dependent on the intent of perception teamed up with the agenda of our knowledge...well, there's a crack in that egg.

I'm not suggesting that everything we know is wrong.
I'm suggesting that everything we know is only one of myriad choices.

Just because there may be two or more universes doesn't necessarily make either of them less real. It's still all about energy fields and perception. If anything, the totality becomes more real...just less restrictive.

We already know that everything is made up of tiny bits that defy the logic of our nuts and bolts prejudices.
yet, we tend to ignore that. We'd like to keep the quantum realm inextricably separated from this molecular we've agreed is the real one.

even though, we should know by now that that isn't really true at all.
We seek the comfort of a cozy and limited reality.
And eventually, that cozy certainty becomes claustrophobic; limiting. Maybe we get bored and curious simultaneously.

Or maybe we double down in our certainty of this particular hallucination; passionate in our clarity; vehement in our science...

all the while ignoring what the science is hinting at.

we could rejoice in this, but we are full of fear. Or worse. certainty.
what could be more tragic than that?

it would be analogous to not getting to see other countries because of our conviction that man will never make a flying machine. and then, if you don't die soon enough, you're faced with the embarrassment of actually perceiving air craft transporting people that come back with stories about where they went.

Imagine an extreme alpha male type that happens to be color blind but refuses to believe it. He is more comfortable believing that the non-color blind are liars or wishful thinkers.

he wouldn't even be wrong.

that's how flexible the probability fields of sub-atomic particles are.

It's not that reality is an illusion...
it's more like illusions are reality.

and yet, we remain hypnotized. we are passionate, scientifically minded skeptics that have a few chinks in the Armour of our certainty.
We can't begin to explain consciousness, and we can't begin to explain the big bang prequel movie.

in fact, allow me to declare this:

we will never be able to explain that. Zero chance.

Still, we cling to the certainty of our nuts and bolts like a christian clings to jesus or worse...even as the science we revere slowly undermines all that we hold sacred.

Quite the pickle we find ourselves in.
Reply
#8
For the record: The double slit experiment involves light, not electrons.

Yes, I admit it's a nit-pick.



Carry on. Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#9
(05-23-2017, 10:40 PM)stanky Wrote:  Still, we cling to the certainty of our nuts and bolts like a christian clings to jesus or worse...

I really dislike that comparison.

One "idea", that of Jesus, is backed up by not a single piece of evidence.

The other, nuts & bolts, is backed up by thousands of years of physical evidence, with not a single thing to suggest nuts & bolts are about to stop working.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#10
Nuts and bolts work fine.
What we have trouble with is accepting that they are made out of nothing.

Our thousand years of physical evidence has recently gotten interesting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)