[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;38467594] Let's take a system of measurement that we know is unfinished because of its incompatibility with the rest of physics and apply its principles on the function of extremely small scale physical interaction to day to day large scale life shit.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the principles of quantum physics doesn't get applied to day to day large scale things. That's what general relativity is for. They've been looking for a "Theory of Everything" that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity for some time now, though.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;38467594]
And of course, like the fucking quantum plonkers that they are, instead of trying to answer questions like "why does observation change the outcome of an experiment", they just go "FUCKING MAGIC I SEE MIRACLES EVERY DAY" and act like they're the pinnacle of fucking intellect for injecting "but the world is full of mysteries" into everything.[/QUOTE]
Well, the "observer effect" changes the outcome of an experiment because the photon(s) of light required to observe a particle have enough energy to knock the particle off its original trajectory causing things to screw up. You can see its movement with a terrible sense of its position or see exactly where it is but screw up its trajectory in the process as a result.
Hopefully that gets rid of your rage.
In any case, I'd rather have a master understanding of Maxwell's equations than a shit tier understanding of QM theory. Why do people always try to swallow knowledge whole? It's better to take baby steps and understand things on a deeper level.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;38469057]how is the experiment presented and what conclusions do they derive from it - and how are they wrong?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep_do_we_know#Academic_reaction[/url]
Two things:
-As much as I don't like it, quantum physics as it is usually interpreted today, and as all the evidence indicates, is anti-realist. A particle is does not have a definite property until that property is measured. That said, I'm not willing to claim yet that the world is anti-realist, because frankly quantum mechanics is on the worst philosophical foundation of any part of physics at the moment.
-Even though the above is crazy as fuck and true, a lot of the arguments spawning from it are hippy bullshit.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;38464028]Now what the fuck does that have to do with those new age retards in scientist disguise's psychotic rambling? Exactly! You go offtopic as soon as you get butthurt over the fact that you cant defend your own bullshit or some other bullshit you happen to agree with.
Theese guys have played too many video games. they think that because even though a three dimensional object on a computer can be perceived as a three dimensional object, or a bunch of 2d images in succesion, or a long string it also is like that in reality. Its stupid. We have what we have and sometimes things dont act as expected, that is when you figure it out, not sit down on your ass, light a spliff and go shit on a camera while going "ITS AeLl a VIdiö GAEM xD XD xD" without any supporting evidence but theiir weed hallucination, upload the resulting footage and play some dumb choir music over to make it sound like some sort of life important revelation.
I will first believe in this bullshit when they have multiple experiments outside of their drug influenced "brains" and everyday life backing it up with evidence.[/QUOTE]
First of all, holograms exist. We make them all the time. They are two dimensional and contain all the information of a three dimensional scene.
Second of all, the universe does actually have some holographic properties, though they don't necessarily mean we're living in a hologram some aliens in another universe created. The entropy of a region of space scales proportional to the radius of the region squared, which suggests that the information content of the region can be encoded completely on the two-dimensional boundary of the volume.
I wish I was smart to really understand it all. But the one thing I do believe is there is no truth. We all just have frameworks of understanding. Or a lens if you will. We can only understand the world through this lens and that is all it is, an image through a lens. The lens is always changing, and monumental shifts in our frameworks of understanding we call paradigm shifts. Like going from the world is flat to the world is round. We will never know what actually is, and there probably is no actuality, like they said in the video you need some sort of lens to perceive reality or it just doesn't exist.
Not sure what to make of this. Pretty on the fence with it all. However, as a species, humans aren't intelligent enough to comprehend of this. We can only make assumptions and apply theories. There's no possible way of knowing what's real and what isn't, it's all about perception.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38471597][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep_do_we_know#Academic_reaction[/url][/QUOTE]
The documentary isn't very scientific and I agree that they try to make it seem like it's all true when a lot of what they present is pseudoscience. But as soon as someone with half a brain who is watching it sees the experiment about the water droplet crystals, they should start to sense the bullshit and treat it as the pseudoscience that it is. However, I thought the visual explanation in the segment that I linked to was a good presentation.
Instead of linking to wikipedia, what is your opinion of the documentary's interpretation of the two slits experiment? Do you see any flaws in their explanation? If so, what are they? Also, where can I find a better description of the experiment if this one if flawed?
[QUOTE=GustavTrapp;38470320]>mfw laymen still don't understand that "observe" doesn't mean "perceived by a conscious being" in the context of quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The observer could be another particle. Its just has to be something that the partical interacts with. In the case of the double slit experiment, the detector has to interact with the photon/electron which collapses its probability wave at that point. It would do this whether or not anybody was looking at the detector.
In short, things still exist when conscious observers don't see them because the probability waves are almost constantly interacting with other probability waves. It only gets weird at subatomic scales. On the macro level there are so many interactions going on that quantum weirdness doesn't play a part unless we set it up like in the double slit experiment. Its like rolling a dice. Each roll is random, but with enough rolls, you can expect uniformity in the distribution of numbers.
[QUOTE=hansjurgen;38474099]The documentary isn't very scientific and I agree that they try to make it seem like it's all true when a lot of what they present is pseudoscience. But as soon as someone with half a brain who is watching it sees the experiment about the water droplet crystals, they should start to sense the bullshit and treat it as the pseudoscience that it is. However, I thought the visual explanation in the segment that I linked to was a good presentation.
Instead of linking to wikipedia, what is your opinion of the documentary's interpretation of the two slits experiment? Do you see any flaws in their explanation? If so, what are they? Also, where can I find a better description of the experiment if this one if flawed?[/QUOTE]
I agree, but some of the experiments mentioned are mindblowing, especially the one about duplicate pre-recorded tapes with left and right clicks, and subjects asked to increase the number of clicks on a given side and then testing the copies and finding that there were, consistently, more clicks on the target side. I looked up the study, and found this:
[quote]Consider the following test arrangement (Schmidt, 1976). A binary generator produces blocks of 201 random decisions. These are recorded simultaneously on two cassette tapes, with the heads and tails as signals in the right or left stereo channels respectively. At the generation speed of 20 signals per second, the tapes can hold typically 140 data blocks, with 20 second pauses between the blocks.
When the recording is completed, one of the identical tapes is placed into a safe, while the other tape is used in the PK sessions. During these sessions, the subject listens through headphones to the tape, perceiving the signals as clicks in the right or left ear. The subject's PK goal is an increased rate of clicks in the right ear, corresponding to an excess of generated heads. Whenever the subject gets tired, he can stop at any of the 20 second pauses on the tape and adjourn the test.
For the experiment, six tape pairs were pre-recorded in this manner, with a total of 832 blocks of 201 signals each. After the subject had worked on all tapes, the tapes were evaluated to see whether there was, indeed, a bias towards heads as aimed for by the subject. The simple but reliable evaluation method counted the number of successful blocks with more heads than tails and the number of unsuccessful blocks. The result showed that 54.6% of the 832 blocks were successful. This is statistically significant with odds against chance of 100:1.
A series of subsequent similar experiments (Schmidt 1976; Schmidt, Morris, & Rudolph, 1986) confirmed the PK effect with pre-recorded events, at high levels of statistical significance (z-value of 3.1, 4.2, 2.0, and 2.7).
To complete our discussion, remember that the initially generated random events were identically recorded on two cassette tapes, with one tape given to the subject and the other one kept locked in a safe. The correspondence of the two tape copies was guaranteed by a macroscopic recording process not subject to chance factors. According to our weak violation hypothesis, the PK effort should not alter the correspondence between the two records. This was, indeed, verified: the two records still agreed at the end, both showing the same bias towards heads.
Thus, the results suggest a non-local interaction in the sense that a PK effort on one tape is observable on the other tape also. This may remind us of the quantum correlations between far separated systems as discussed in connection with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. But there is the vital difference that the quantum correlation alone, no matter how puzzling and exotic it may appear, cannot be practically used for information transmission.
The exotic features of PK, on the other hand, can be made practically useful. As a side benefit, we can make PK testing particularly convenient and safe. We can let the subject work with the tape unsupervised at his home. We do not have to worry about the possibility of fraud, because we can evaluate the experiment from the tape in the safe, which never was near the subject.
We can carry this one step further and make the experiment safe even against errors and fraud by the experimenter, by channeling first hand evidence for psychic effects to an outsider, as follows.
First, we prepare a pair of tapes with identical sequences of random numbers. Next, we give one sealed tape copy to the outsider, letting the outsider decide whether he wants an excess of signals in the right or the left tape channel. We communicate this target assignment to the subject, who can now start the test sessions, playing the tape back while trying to get more signals in the specified channel. At the ends the outsider counts the numbers of right and left signals on his tape. And if the PK subject was successful, the outsider finds that, indeed, there are more signals in the channel he specified. If we repeat this procedure with a sufficient number of tapes, the outsider cannot but acknowledge the anomalous correlation between what he specified and what he later found on his tape.
We have used this basic method, with minor modifications, for an actual experiment, with myself as the experimenter and Bob Morris and Lu Rudolph at Syracuse University in the role of outsiders (Schmidt et al., 1986). Morris is an active parapsychology researcher and Rudolph a professor in communication engineering. Both felt rather skeptical with regard to PK effects on pre-recorded events. We used two outside observers supervising each other, because we also wanted to minimize the possibility of fraud by the outsiders.
The whole experiment was structured into ten sections, with each section to be evaluated by its z-value (the observed deviation in units of one standard deviation), positive values indicating success and negative values indicating failure. Figure 3 shows that only one of the ten sections gave a negative score.
The total result, as seen by the outsiders, is significant with odds against chance of 100:1 (z = 2.7).
[img]http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/images/strange3.gif[/img]
Fig. 3. Results of an experiment in channeling PK to outsiders. The figure plots the z-score obtained for the ten sections of the experiment. Positive values indicate scoring in the desired direction. Under the chance hypothesis, positive and negative z -values are equally likely.
The Problem of Interpretation
Psychic phenomena being at odds with current physics as well as with naive intuition, we cannot explain the effects in terms of more familiar concepts. For the theorist, the ultimate "explanation" might consist of an abstract formalism that, like the formalisms of quantum theory or relativity theory, describes the observed phenomena consistently, teaching us to adjust our tuition accordingly. For the more practically inclined experimenter, "understanding" might be equivalent to sufficient hand's on experience and full information on what psychic mechanisms can and can not do.
The two hypothesis we have introduced might, if confirmed, serve as stepping stones for a future theory. The results of the experiments with pre-recorded random events were consistent with the hypotheses. But there are details that one might want to check more thoroughly.
The most basic question is whether it was really the subject in his time delayed PK effort that produced the effects. Let us consider some alternatives.
In view of the goal oriented operation of PK, the experimenter might have sensed the outsider's future target assignments and might have (unwittingly) activated his PK powers accordingly, at the time the random events were generated. While such a possibility cannot yet be ruled out completely, earlier experiments (Schmidt, 1976) in which subjects selected by their high success in regular PK experiment performed also particularly well in tests with pre-recorded PK targets point strongly to the subject as the PK source.
More information on this question of whether the subject's effort, indeed, is the source of the PK effect might come from experiments comparing the subject's mental state (during the PK session) with the resulting scores.
Another possibility to consider is that the outsider who generated the random target assignments could have been the source of the success. The outsider might have sensed the previously generated random numbers and influenced the generator for the random assignments accordingly. This argument would apply, however, only to the last experiment, because the earlier tests with pre-recorded targets did not involve such an outsider.
The weak violation hypothesis and the equivalence hypothesis agree in suggesting that PK tests with pre-recorded events should work as well as other PK tests. The weak violation hypothesis with its specific reference to quantum theory, however, introduces an additional element that we should discuss in some detail.[/quote]
[url]http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/strange.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Vasili;38463379]The idea of sound is just a human concept.[/QUOTE]
Not really.
I'm pretty sure there were some very loud fucking noises to be heard before our planet Earth had even formed into shape. Like the big bang, or a rock asteroid hitting another.
But if reality is a hologram,then [B]how did the word hologram come into being if it's all fake?[/B]
0/10 theory wouldn't listen again
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
