Quantum WAR theory

Post Reply New Topic

I think there is a war of minds already, if not a war, at least our minds affect the reality, as proven! But in which way, we still guess... And what if you eg. think about those times where one thing goes wrong and then simply everything that day goes wrong??.. things like that is suspicious.

Thank you for the movie, Ill watch it

Why do you talk about reproducing? I meant only a shift of values, like its no longer cool to be loud and mean or nobody is forced to say good day to 20 people, one by one when they arrive in a room, because its normal to say hello when you meet and want to talk. So you can relax... it would be so nice to live by values that matches with my own.

Aaah, can you tell me more about that other thing that reality is made of? Antimatter? I guess we are still waiting for the experiment in Cern, where they want to find out how matter is created.

You're using a cartoon as your evidence? Please.

And what does the double slit experiment have to do with thought? All you are doing is showing an experiment that demonstrates quantum interference. You conflate observing into the act of thinking. The observation device doesn't have to think to collapse the waveform into a particle all it has to to is interact with the individual electrons. If you set up a device that records the passage of each electron through the slits, leave and let it run for awhile, the device "observing" and recording is sufficient. No thinking required.

What you are suggesting is that by sitting in front of the double slit and "looking" at it, you can THINK the collapsing waveform into happening. You actually need a sensor that interacts with the electron, so it is not even your thought that makes it happen, it is the sensor.

I watched the cartoon before commenting.

For observing a electron you need a device that will pertube it. You can't just "watch" a subatomic particle passing by. In everyday life if you can see it's thanks to photons colliding with particles composing matter.

Hey, this experiment is serious, so you can find it in our physics books. The cartoon is only illustrating it. If you can find the movie "What the bleep do we know", that would be the one that explained it to me in 2001. Ok, you dont understand, so let me explain. If you dont observe the particles, you have another "result" than when the particles are observed. When the particles are not observed in the actual process, everything is possible and you have an interference pattern (the particle is everywhere at once, interferes with itself and strange things like that).
->If you measure the path of the particle it does behave logical, and you have the easy result.
They say that in the moment a being looks at the measurements of the way of the particle, the result changes to be logical, so that you change the past when the measurement was done. There is also another experiment somewhere, with something about a casette with sound, and a device which counts the sounds... But I dont know where to search for it right now, just one click on the internet, and I find a billion articles about this...
You dont believe this? Do some research!

No. It is you that fails to understand. I do not need to actively observe in order for the double slit experiment to work. There only needs to be a sensor that perturbs the electrons.



Key word is measure. It is the measuring that perturbs the system. Not thinking about measuring but actually measuring.



What you are suggesting is that if I set up the electron sensor, turn it on, start the experiment and close my eyes it will have a different result than if I keep my eye open.



You are misinterpreting the results of the experiment. It's not a matter of belief.

As far as I can tell, this experiment only proves that observance alters the wave function. Observing is not thinking.

I am still open to the idea of thought affecting reality, just that this isn't any kind of proof of that.

Oh, how normal is that then. Reality being unlogical when its not "measured" ? What does a man made appliance has to do with the affection of reality?



Yes !



I dont believe that this issue is so uncommon here. Ive been dealing with it since many years and I thought people with interest in science would absorb this knowledge (which has been common since 10 years) as I have done. This experiment proves that our brains affect the behavior of matter. period!! !! !! !! !! ! now go read.

??? "alters the wave function". ?

It is an experiment, where you can see that one single particle makes an interference pattern (it has to be interfering with it self and be everywhere at once at at all times to do that).
If it is measured it behaves according to our known physics.

How is observing not thinking? When you observe you understand, you think.

You'll love this then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Con ... ss_Project


http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

You're right, thanks

Very much, thanks! Its how I understand it too, because if you zoom in to atom size and closer, in the end there is a huge space between the smallest particles that we assume exist. That the particles still keep together and constitute matter must be explained with a form for energy between them. I like to picture the energy ocean in my head in just one color, so that its clear that every existing matter is connected with each other at the atom level, but just has a more or less compact structure of atomes; like the different structures of glass, wood and air for example.
Now if you start a wave somewhere in the ocean....

By the way: thank you for the movie, it is expressing what I already assumed to be true. Im continiuing this now being more sure about it

once someones morals overtake thier thinking then war is possible

Oh no. I knew that movie would come into this sooner or later *headdesk*

This is known as Modern Physics Abuse Syndrome. That movie is horrible scientifically and ethically, it's just new age crap peddled by a cult leader. It has nothing to do with how reality actually works, and it promotes an incredibly selfish (i.e. not "spiritual" at all by any normal sense) way of looking at the world. It's just a series of statements next to each other that most people seem to think actually mean something, even though one sentence won't necessarily prove the next sentence is true.

No problem. One day science will be able to address the way in which energy in one place can effect energy in another place, even if that the atomic scale said energy is not connected (at least as we understand it currently). We, humans, and every other piece of matter in the universe (universes maybe) are all just vibrating energy after all.

That is only one interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) of QM. There as others.

But the problem is that, "...so our brains affect the behavior of matter" is a leap by a verbal idea which is not backed up by math (and therefore isn't physics, and therefore isn't something one can reliably believe is true).

There are experiments that seem to violate the principle that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But again, that's because language is too imprecise. The "collapse of the wave function" in photon-splitter experiments seems to happen instantaneously. So, when you observe the spin (angular momentum, properly) of one photon the other seems to be instantly fixed, despite being at a distance. But you still can't predict which was the spin is, or fix the spin of the other in one direction or the other. So, there is no possible way of transmitting anything other than totally random data with that phenomenon. So, some fact seems to move faster than light, but use-able information does not.

And it is possible that our brains have various concepts built-in because they were evolutionarily useful. It may simply be that our brains cannot conceive of the true way that quantum mechanics works. We have to appeal to wave/particle duality because we can understand waves and particles, but not some weird thing that has some of both properties.

So, again, the Copenhagen interpretation is that the wavefunction "collapses" instantaneously upon "observation." But that in no way means that the observer can affect the outcome of the experiment. That leap doesn't hold.