ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- Latest discussion www.my-big-toe....
Author of "My Big Toe" (MBT) trilogy Physicist Thomas Campbell explains what happens during the Double Slit Experiment and why it happens.
"Physics has no idea of the fundamental principles that require particles to exist as probability distributions before measurement collapses the wave function to a physical particle (measured physical state). They just know that it is so. MBT derives from fundamental first principles why particles must always exist first as probability distributions. Thus MBT derives Quantum mechanics from first principles. This solution completely resolves the apparent contradiction of wave particle duality generated by the double slit experiment. MBT further shows that the same concepts (reality must always exist first as probability distributions) apply just as much to the macro world as the micro world - it is a general principle -- not a special principle only valid at subatomic scales." Thomas Campbell
3:30 He is wrong. "... it was the actual conscious act ..." That's not what quantum mechanics is about. There is no evidence that consciousnesses is required for any quantum effect to occur. Quantum Mechanics is a set of equations that very precisely describe subatomic world. It might be hard to understand but that doesn't justify the sort of misrepresentation that Thomas Campbell is presenting. It's very important to distinguish between what QM is and how somebody wants to interpret it.
Nassim Harriman says it can be easily reproduced with liquid and a bunch of marbles basically
You missed the point completely lol. He’s not talking about consciousness at all. By “conscious” act he means the “purposeful” act of the scientist is what caused the particle to change.
@@DCYTB Purposeful or conscious or absent minded, none of those abstract concepts explain the double split experiment.
MyOther Soul You still don’t quite get it. The particle is so small and so sensitive that the simple act of deliberately observing it is what causes it to physically change. This is widely understood albeit difficult to fathom.
@@DCYTB Particle? Or wave? It's true whatever they are they are easily changed whether it is deliberate or not is of no matter.
I get the feeling that this experiment is telling us something very profound about what we call "reality". It would seem that what we call"reality" does not exist until we observe it: it is simply a "probability wave" of possibilities. This is really deep...
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness." - Max Planck
Why isn't this the first thing taught to everyone on the first day of science class?
right. Like if they want people to be interested in science, show us what we don't know. There is little interesting about exploring rocks that have been explored for thousands of years. It is human to be bored by the known.
+つ ◕_◕ ༽つ So...the experimental results you dont like are religion?
Yeah, the double slit experiment is religion breh. Didn't you know that?
***** You're mixing his explanation of the double slit up with his model of reality.
***** No. He's explaining the experiment in terms that most quantum physicists already know. There is no physical object in the experiement traveling anywhere.
It's like those damn particles are laughing at us.
Dodgy little bastards
Those particles are saying to us = hahahha lodu
I truly wish I possessed the dedication & discipline & strength to have committed my life to Quantum Physics. Instead, I obtained a less demanding degree, for I needed "free-time" to "unwind." The one TRUE gift I was born with squandered for petty and short-sighted desires. The mysteries of the quantum universe keep me awake at night, as they do this very night, and I sit here powerless to solve them for I turned from that road long ago..
fucking so fucking right.
I traded my curiosity with an easy Business degree because i had to live and love.
Now i find wondering every day what is the mysterious force that operates and gives shape to everything, and how can i wake myself to that ultimate truth.I wish i could go back and choose physics instead.
+Sharjeel BrOsama You can both still do this!! (Marc and Sharjeel) You do not need to study this topic, it is within you already! We do not make mistakes in life just de-tours. Education is a meer illusion and at the end of the day we are ALL made of the same forces/ energies which make up the universe- the universe is inside of us. Even Physicists do not understand these energies. Good luck remembering :)
+Ruth Bettles How poetic. A degree in quantum physics still would probably help a great deal in finding answers to these questions. I'd rather suggest getting a text book on quantum physics and trying to learn it that way than relying on my imagination and "the forces and energies of the universe inside me".
+Vincent Mader I dont think one can start with q.p. i would recommend starting with classical mechanics , than nuclear and than quantum
+Marc Rover ..."organized education" aspires to eliminate the sillier varieties of curiosity & so forth. IF you have a GENUINELY scientific and reality-based mind...(one that is not influenced by emotion, wishes, desires, impatience or whimsy), you can actually VERY productively and effecitively study almost anything. Knowledge is free access these days...if you know how to parse through it, and seek out help where specifically necessary, you can accomplish the same results as someone with a "respectable" formal education. There are no rules mate... we ALL came sliding out of a vagina at some point, with this big, weird universe around us...you don't need a piece of paper to say you are able to contribute...other people who slid out of OTHER vaginas simply made up these pieces of paper/documents in hopes of creating a verification/standardization process that might seperate the wheat from the chaff. IF you are able to do this yourself, then proceed.
Commonly the mistake is made when someone hears "our observations seem to affect the event itself." They think that by observing that we are talking about looking at it directly with our eyeballs. But we do not have the ability to see these events with our eyes. When we talk about observation in context of QM we are talking about prodding the event with some particular mechanism and reading the data, such as firing electrons at the event and trying to determine details about the event from the resulting behavior of the electron.
I know this from extensive reading on the misconceptions regarding wave/particle duality. The collapse happens because the detection equipment effects the thing you are trying to measure. This is inevitable. In order for something passing through a slit to be detected it must interact with the detection equipment so as to cause some measurable effect in the equipment. This cannot happen without the object also being affected. The detection thus causes the collapse (tape or no tape).
Thank you! I wanted to write exactly the same.
@@koudJakSvin no, they even uses a delayed tape record and still it collapsed. So the use of tape or no tape, the affect of the detection equipment can’t be a part of the collapsing.
As far as I can tell the detectors affected the result regardless of whether the data was gathered or not, so Mr Campbell seems to have got the wrong end of the stick there.
I thought the same thing, mainly because i've been watching a lot of the double slit experiment, and none of the other explanations offered this. But ye, would be amazing if the experiment he shows is reproducible or scientifically accepted. For now I cannot assume his explained experiment is performed reliable.
That has been experimentally disproved. It's about the information availability; not a physical interaction.
What if we had the magnetic tape recording the data, but then erased the data before it could be parsed? Would it go back to a particle? If it remained a wave simply because we do no have the data, then we repeat the recording and erasing but with a twist of a secondary device recording from the tape before it was erased... would it be a particle again? We need to get really granular here and figure out exactly what is going on and exactly what causes the differing results. More specifically... what "counts" as "observing" and what doesn't.
Interesting. I don’t doubt it’s been thought of before but I think like explained in the video it’s a dead end people just wouldn’t know what to do with that information
Agreed. We're missing something here. Record the data and it DOESN'T show an interference pattern? What if no one looked at the tape???? Would that still cause the interference pattern or not? Human consciousness isn't involved if no one's looking.
They're not telling us something.
I don't quite know where consciousness comes into the picture yet. There is a simple fact that is not arguable which is that when your equipment makes an observation, it cannot help but make a change in the experiment. And I'm pretty sure that's a big reason for why this result occurs. On large scales, you obviously cannot see the effect, but on small scales such as these, it would logically seem easy to accidentally disrupt the experiment by making an observation by, say, hitting the experiment with a relatively large photon, or passing the particles through detectors which are composed of huge charged capacitors that emit sound waves and such when they detect particles.
It's pretty simple, really. It has nothing to do with someone "looking" at the experiment. it has to do with measuring the particles. When you measure them, you change the state of the system, so you change the outcome of the experiment.
Everyone likes to think it's some kind of magic interaction, but it's because they confuse the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
Also, if you quit thinking of particles as regular ole' balls of matter, physical objects, this experiment can make much more sense. Particles are NOT physical objects, whether they are in a wave form or particle form or both. "Particle" is another word for "quanta" or counts of energy units. People like to portray this experiment like the difference between water waves and ping pong balls, but this is a terrible analogy, because particles never act like ping pong balls at all. They always act like particles. When you do not use the detector, the particle is open and in the same state (and energy) it was as it left the emitter. When it passes the detector, energy is transferred from the system, the state changes, and the particle now has fewer paths to follow.
Watch a Galton board and imagine the difference between randomly dropping the balls and having to carefully place each ball in an exact way so it only takes a small number of paths. Again, particles are not balls, but this is a better analogy than ping pong balls. The electromagnetic field is full of virtual particles and tiny perturbations in the field that influence a particle's path, until the state changes and the wave function collapses. Which is a mathematical way of saying that every step had many choices to change path, but now each step only has a very small number of choices.
03:45 - This conclusion is erroneous because it forgets that was not only the fact the data was not recorded but the fact that not been "loaded" to send data, they do not react the same at what they receive has changes in their space near by. It's like detector coils: when their circuit is closed (information are recorded), an electric current goes through it and create a magnetic field in return that influence the space from which the measure is taken, while when their circuit are open (and so no data is recorded) their is no current in the coil thus not magnetic field built so no back influence on the space where the measurements are taken. No Metaphysics needed here to explain, and in virtue of the Occan Rasor Principle ... ;-)
The conclusion is true, and there are no such things as 'detector coils' or 'magnetic fields' in quantum eraser and delayed eraser experiments.
+Jeremy Yarbro
I know I am not English tongue but near 1 thousand people around the world used to clearly understand my words (I'm not talking here on TH-cam) so maybe you should read my words with more attention and you should realise it was a "conceptual parallel" to show that the presence of a detector, would it be NOT//////// magnetic or else, might have an impact on the electromagnetic waves but at a more subtle level.
And I guess I might know the physical reason for that and it lays in the "Louis de Broglie second solution" with his late theory on his carrier waves: the detector been sending or not its data could change the phase waves which comes from the holes for similar reasons than in the examples (but again it is JUST a parallel) I gave with coil detector but NOT at the level in a way of the "raw" classic electromagnetic waves but at the sub-level of the phase waves.
(So now you may ask the Office to give me the Nobel Price, as soon the French Fundamental Laboratory of Physics associated with the MIT, the "École Normale Supérieure", will have demonstrated this conjecture ^_^ ).
:*
I hate to break it to Mr. Campbell, but the observer effect does not require consciousness to be present in order to work. There have already been experiments that reproduced the observer effect without any conscious interaction.
Finally, a video that describes what happens when the detectors are left on, but humans have turned off the collection/storage of these detections. So, it begs the question, what else can consciousness do to "manipulate" particles; ie, can the mind be disciplined enough to indeed control matter?
Propaganda, look back at all the decades of inventions and of its wars . the mind with all it’s thoughts creates the future , we are the artists, Ukraine and Russia are perfect examples, most all the news on the possibilities of nuclear war hasn’t happened yet , but the news is instilling pictures and thoughts on the what ifs , the leading up to, they’re talking like it’s a fact, a reality , and that’s keeping up with the news on an hourly or daily report, which a lot of people don’t do, these few people or governments are creating our future with their thoughts
John Chang from Java did it, yes.
The mind controls the experimental outcomes and the person performing the experiment also?
He steered sharply away from reality at 2:53. If a detector 'detects', it doesn't matter if it then records that detection... cats in boxes don't need us to tell them if they are alive or dead.
Much of this is 80+ year old thoughts on quantum mechanics that have been refined, expanded, or rejected with new experiments and theories. But telling the whole story would defeat the purpose, which is usually to say "QM is weird, but it's true; this other thing is weird too, so maybe it's true, too."
This is the first guy I have heard who explains more of this experiment than anyone else, but there are obvious and simple questions I have and have yet to find someone address. (The only physicist I have access to is not a quantum physicist.) What happens when one of the slits is blocked and the photons pass through a single slit with the detector on and then off?
I've seen another TH-cam video that addressed that situation. There would be one line on the screen directly across from the open slit because there is a 0% probability of any photons going through a covered slit.
What's more remarkable is that the results are consistent with those of a regular particle experiment (2 bands at the detector screen) even if you place the slit detectors not at the slits themselves, but after the photon/electron/atom passes through. Its a probability function until we decide to look at it, and we look at it by interacting with it. The act of observing itself is an interaction that forces the probability function to become a point or a value.
No. If you don't have detectors at the slits or after the slits, then there is an interference pattern on the back wall. If you place a photomultiplier tube (camera) after one slit, there is a particle pattern after both slits even though the camera does not interact with the photons as they move through the slits. It definitely does not interact with the photons that go through the unobserved slit. Thus, interaction does not cause that to change. The interaction has to happen at the slits. If it's a wave moving through both with no detector, then you place a detector after the slits, it can't magically morph from a wave to a particle even if it "waves" through a slit that the camera is not observing.Moreover, there are many more experiments that show interaction is not causal in any of it.
Jeremy Yarbro You are contradicting yourself.
"If you don't have detectors at the slits or after the slits, then there is an interference pattern on the back wall." - yes, agree
"If you place a photomultiplier tube (camera) after one slit, there is a particle pattern after both slits even though the camera does not interact with the photons as they move through the slits" - again, you are right here
but then you contradict yourself: " If it's a wave moving through both with no detector, then you place a detector after the slits, it can't magically morph from a wave to a particle even if it "waves" through a slit that the camera is not observing" - this is exactly opposite. If you start detecting after they pass through the slits as wave, you still get a particle pattern on the screen.
GamerDudester" If you start detecting after they pass through the slits as wave, you still get a particle pattern on the screen."
I know that. The problem is that they do not pass through the slits as a wave, because now you have invented a magic wave that can't be detected that mysteriously morphs into a particle when there is a camera watching it. Nonsense.
Jeremy Yarbro That is what happens though... the photon is seemingly going back in time, but in reality, its about knowing the POSSIBLE path the photon can travel.look up the quantum eraser.
a camera can not watch a photon go by
In computer science, solutions to problems can be found by computing all possibilities. Solving a maze for example: compute all possible paths. When the algorithm is satisfied, destroy the incorrect paths and only leave the correct one. Since particles such as photons may be waves or particles, it is not always known at all times which they need to be. So the algorithm is not satisfied until a result or outcome is needed. It appears reality is anthropic: when an observer inquires about the state of a particle of photon in the double slit experiment, the final computation is performed and the algorithm is satisfied. Otherwise a "stack" or "queue" of computations remains that reflects all possibilities.
Thus it was proven that we live in a simulation, 100 years ago.
Yep. Or something similar. And if that's the case, I believe an argument can be made that reality is anthropic. The universe is not random and we're not an accident. The rules of physics exist by design and are enforced by an unseen 'hand'. Light being a wave sometimes and a particle sometimes is necessary for sight. The relativity of time is necessary so each observer's experience occurs in "real" time, otherwise sometimes events would appear to be sped up or slowed down instead of always constant.
+John Cox well
Finally someone who sees the double slit experiment from my point of view
+Jeremy Yarbro 100 years our simulated time is probably half of a second to the programmer's perception of time
Though Tom says that the way this simulation works, the computing of all possible paths is done only once, when the machine or experiment is built. Once all possible outcomes are known, the computer no longer has to compute all possible paths every time someone runs the experiment. It has a probability distribution of possible paths a potential particle could take, and it takes a random draw from that distribution. No particles traveling anywhere. Just rendered as if they existed and traveled somewhere.
08:25 actually explains that if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it really doesn't make a sound!
I remember an experiment with random generated number on a computer, using a one or a two randomly generated.
A person thinks about a number, a #one or a #two and the results were that the number that the person though of was "randomly" appearing more often than the 50%, because of thoughts.
+Tommy O Donovan Have a look at P.E.A.R. labs experiments which concluded it to be over billion to 1 of not being chance . That may be where you are thinking of.
***** thank you, I "thought" I had just dreamed of the computer experiment.
I'll definitely have a good look at the Link.
+Tommy O Donovan See the work of Rupert Sheldrake on Telepathy. Dogs that know when their owners are coming home, people that know who's on the phone. Incontrovertible statistical evidence for instantaneous communication. See his entertaining talk at the Electric Universe Conference on the 10 dogmas of science if you're not familiar with his work.
eeemotion Thank you, I'll check it out.
+eeemotion 1. Sense of smell. 2. Conformational bias. I will be impressed if there is a study that demonstrate that these two explanations do not account for observations in a controlled experiment.
Human double slit experiment.
For many years, I met a friend with the same spiritual name as mine. While speaking, I acknowledged much congruency. After dancing meditation, he sat across to me against a wall, as I did also.
A question arose inside of me: Who is the other being?
Now, I asked myself who are you? Where he immediately disappeared. My eyes were open. I felt my self as being present and he was gone out of sight. I saw the wall and some dancers. Moreover, I DID NOT SEE HIM ANYMORE. I shook my head and he was there again.
Where I again asked myself: Who are you? With the result, he was gone again.
Astonished I went out of the room, asking myself why does this happen.
Finally, I found that the mirroring aspect did not function anymore. I could not see him, because I did not ask him whom he was/is.
Now I meet often scientific doubled split experiments. Where I now can view this experiment out of another spiritual position.
. There is a position of the observer projecting and a position of the receiving wall, where in between those slits are present.
. There is a position of observing inside a human being, where the "wall" is also inside.
. There is a position of receiving inside a human being, where an inner instance perceives.
The pre-conditions for a material and/or spiritual doubled split experiment are:
Visible light is a wave of points, where these waves embraces a frequency, vibrations and distance. The points of the waves do not touch each other. Thinking and sensing happens.
Invisible light has no-waves, so base on points, which are bound with each other. Feeling happens by the lines of space-time bending.
The spiritual human experiment for visible light.
In this case, I as an observer am visible light.
I am situated inside the back part of the split big brain.
In this case, I am bipolar (split, dual) light.
I have two eyes at the front of my big brain, where my eyes are the doors/slits for mirroring the inner world of my bipolar big brain and the bipolar outer world. Where I move through my big brain as a projection.
Mirroring.
Looking inside a mirror it is obvious that by touching mirror glass with my left hand, the mirrored right hand meets my left hand. Of course, this happens with all extremities. However, it is remarkable that this does not happen with my nose, because it is present inside the midst of my body. Here is found an entanglement by extremities and an alignment by the midst.
By the way:
Such a mirror absorbs much of visible projected light reflected, which does not pass the mirror.
The eyes.
It is possible to observe with the right eye, the left eye, with closed eyes and with both eyes.
Closed eyes help to observe of what is going on inside the big brain. Therefore by night and by daylight.
By two open eyes, it is very easy to lower the upper eyelid on many positions, even until the eyes are closed. This has an impact on observing the observed.
By one open eye and one closed eye, it is impossible for me lower the upper eyelid in different positions. Maybe this is for other human beings possible? A total closing is possible easily.
I am talking about healthy eyes, where otherwise some muscle injuries could affect the impact of the eyes. Also must be recognised that glasses or other means for helping to observe right cover many eyes. For sure, the eyes now are not healthy enough.
The eyes are now in fact the slits inside a wall, representing the slits.
The outer wall receives the light send and is here not a mirror, as showed above. Scientists have to interpret here.
This is shown by all scientific doubled slit experiments.
The process of spiritual observing.
Observing happens by visible light of wave-points passing through a distance, where inside this distance visible light is present in all varieties of colours. This happens inside the big brain.
A perceiving process inside differs.
Both eyes.
I as the observer move myself (light particle) from the back of the split big brain. Pass through the "doubled" big brain. Pass both eyes into the outer world.
The nerves of the eyes are crossed over related with the back of the bipolar big brain.
The observer moves as carried by a light particle, which can have a colour or not.
Because of the waves and frequencies inside the brain, I observe and recognise the outer world. Here a distanced observation becomes accepted as a perception. Moreover is in fact a perception with a certain uncertainty.
By the eyes a rainbow is observed and recognised inside, where the wave of colours appeared by broken white light. This must be possible also by a scientific slit experiment. I am curious when a scientist could arrange this.
Anyway, my spiritual experiment confirms the scientific experiment for both eyes, doubled slits
One eye.
For hitting a point in the outside, so not a wave, the human being must focus on such a point.
This is done by a laser-light used by scientists, projecting one light particle through a slit, now hitting the wall as a particle.
A sniper, using one eye and closing the other eye, does this also. Such a sniper hits a point even when this point is moving as a wave.
Olympic shooting by bullets and arrows happens the same way by one open eye.
Now, my spiritual experiment confirms scientific experiments for one eye and one slit.
Results.
The results of doubled scientific slit experiment is observed, where a colourless wall received the projected signs of a point or/and of a wave.
The results of a doubled spiritual slit experiment is observed, where a coloured wall (subject) received the signs of a coloured point or/and of coloured waves.
Amount of experiments.
Many scientists showed their experiments clarifying what happened.
I now ask them, whether they are aware of the fact that they copy a procedure of observing all day long with their own spiritual eyes.
Is it not remarkable that all living beings with eyes do this the same way!
So what is the mystery?
By the amount of human beings on earth of ca. 8 billion people, they are observing and experiencing all what is all around and even can discover of all what is happening inside.
It is for sure so that very less people are aware of this self-experiment, which happen 24 hours a day! Now it is possible to use the doubled slit experiment for becoming aware and conscious of whom/what I am.
When I look a bit closer,
in this case, I am a steadily slit experiment.
Still the concern is scientific and spiritual experiments happening inside visible light for observing related with a distance. Here I miss the transcendent position of the perceiver.
Regarding to my experience of not seeing any more my partner, as clarified above, I now can say: My observing impact was not any more directed to the outside, concerning my partner, because I did ask it my self. Therefore, it was logical that I did not observe him anymore for some time and did not see him.
More bipolarities.
Besides the two eyes, there are two ears, two holes inside the nose, two arms or two kidneys etc. Now in a spiritual way, the holes inside the nose and inside the ears are a part of a double spiritual slit experiment also! This also can help to become aware of what/who I am.
The midst.
Between the slits inside the wall, there is a midst. In between any distance, there is a midst, as shown by the mirror clarification. Where by the extremities/dualities/bipolarities all the many sense organs are used, now I say that there is only one feeling organ, presenting itself in the midst.
That means, observing happens by sensing and thinking, where perceiving by feeling is the most important happening inside life.
However, the attention all over the globe is in connection with observing, where only a view people are aware of the difference between sensing and feeling. Therefore is observing related with a double split and must perceiving be connected with a singular split.
The singular experiment of felt light.
I meanwhile experience an inner perceiver, which I feel as being situated inside my middle brain. Because inside feeling there is no bipolarity anymore, I must state this is the instrument responsible for feeling singularity.
By this singular feeling, it is possible only to experience the related singular feeling inside a partner. The one who is at home inside this singular feeling can feel the singular feeling of the partner, even when this partner is not aware of it.
That is a complete different experimented story as the known doubled slit experiment.
I wanted to show how this double slit experiment is active for all inside spiritual universe, where a spiritual evolution is happening.
Therefore, I am an organism by observing and perceiving.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
This is obviously one of those cases we are nearly up to the second...
Actualy we are at the third after a recent discovery at griffith university in Australia. They were able to non local collapse an entangled photon, thus now shining some light on the possibility of using entanglement in quantum computing.
We are at the third but the vast majority are at stage one coming into stage two ;-)
***** A problem with any Philosophy,Religion or Science is that it is mostly based on belief first and actual experience second or not at all. Your own truth is the ultimate truth and no matter what anybody else has said or experienced doesn't really matter fundamentally to you. As Tom Campbell has said " If it is not your truth, based on your experience, then don’t believe it -- Remain skeptical and open minded. Whether it is true or not is the wrong question.”
These are times when we can share information that would have only been local not that many years ago but now it is available instantly globally . The overwhelming information as far as 'Universal Consciousness' is concerned is it is not in the hands of anything, any religion, any theory or anybody else but yourself to discover. The pointers are there but ultimately anything else is a trap :-)
***** Nikola Tesla believed in a universal consciousness as well.He however said the idea was too far ahead of his time and put forward the notion that in 100 years, civilization would understand it. Well we are over 100 years from the point Tesla made that statement but no closer to cracking the mystery.
***** Just go check out Tom Campbell's other videos and you will see someone is understanding it and sharing it with us now :-)
"The observer effect is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics where the act of observation affects the behavior of the system being observed. In general, any type of observation, whether by a human observer or a measuring device, can produce this effect.
In fact, many experiments in quantum mechanics use measuring devices such as cameras or photon detectors to observe the behavior of particles. These devices are necessary to make measurements and record the results of experiments.
However, it is important to note that the observer effect is not limited to measuring devices. The act of observation itself, whether by a human observer or any other means, can produce the effect. This is because the act of observation involves interaction with the system being observed, which can change its behavior.
Therefore, both human observers and measuring devices can produce the observer effect in quantum mechanics. The effect is a fundamental aspect of the theory and is not dependent on the specific observer or measuring device used."
-Chatgpt ai
Whenever I am giving a lecture on quantum physics, I feel as if I am talking about Vedas. (Spiritual and scientific books of Hindus written down in 5000 BC and an oral tradition before that). I studied matter for 35 yrs only to find that it does not exist- exactly what Adishankara said (a Hindu sage -2000 BC) long back from the upanishads.
" All that you see does not exist"
- Hans Peter Durr (German Quantum and Nuclear Physicist)
I don't think they had writing 5,000 years ago
Adishankara lived in 790 AD. Get your facts straight nut.
You are correct Santho.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
kashsoldier - You wrote and I quote, "Whenever I am giving a lecture on quantum physics, I feel as if I am talking about Vedas." end quote.
Can you provide a few references, mantras and or slokas, from any of the four Vedic Scriptures, that throws light on the secrets of quantum physics.
As a lecturer in quantum physics, I value your academic qualifications and experience.But you wrote that after studying matter for 35 years, you concluded that matter does not exist. What do you mean by that? Doesn't the smallest particle of matter, consists of an atom, which consists or protons, neutrons and electrons. Further, a quark is a tiny particle that makes up protons and neutrons, and which are held by gluons. So why do you conclude that matter doesn't exist?
Even in a vacuum (experiment done in an enclosed box) the inside air was removed, meaning a void was created to experiment what is in the Space void, even there they discovered electro energy appearing out of nowhere and a negative charge annihilating it. This thing is happening all over in space even where there is a void. Therefore, I fail to understand your assertion, and that is why I am also curious to know what is in the Vedas. Hoping to hear from you.
@@GlynWilliams1950 - Writing existed long before 5000 years. How old the Vedic religion is a subject of conjecture. The people in India, some say Hinduism is 5000 years old, some say 7000 and some put it at 9000. But Islamic theology reveals when approximately the Vedic scriptures were revealed, and it is much much more than 5000 years. But that's a different subject and I am not sure you would be interested to know.
Schrodinger is Austrian, not German as this speaker is saying.And contrary to the speaker he was NOT that young when he came up with his equation in 1925. He was 38. He was not a graduate student.He was full professor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
Arkady Kholodenko Thanks for the history lesson.
Has anyone tried having monkeys or some other animal do the observing? Does it have to be a human making the observation?
case1- when there was no detector to record data, we got interference pattern mean probability of particle position.
which we slightly experience as when we not make up our mind over deciding something, we may end up with probable outcomes (success or failure) like probable position of particle.
case2- But when we start recording data,like when we decide to accomplish something.Then we definitely gonna acheive it,like the outcome as definite position of particle in 2nd case.
He said it was the concious act of taking the data that effected it! Wrong wrong wrong to conclude that conciousness has effect does not come into it.
A real scientist would say
"removing the tape from the machine correlated with the particles acting different. This could be due to the magnetism of the tape effecting the device or many other interactions. more testing is needed to make a conclusion"
***** I'm with you on that, there is quite a leap here between taking some truth/logic & applying some belief/interpretation to it... which doesn't sound very scientific or trustworthy.
i will solve this some weekend when i have time, i'm out right now hunting bears and shiting in the woods
@TCE it's already proved. Aren't you watching the video? Dr. Emoto's experiments? It's proven with science like hello?
Can anyone clarify the specifics of this statement? 1:30
"They were very clever, found a way to fire one photon at a time at these slits. So they fired a photon and of course one photon isn't enough to measure, particularly in those days, so they actually fired thousands but they only fired them one at a time."
Has this experiment genuinely been done firing one photon at a time, with and without a photon detector at either slit, or is this a thought experiment?
Was done.
This explanation takes more faith to believe than most religions require... "photons" are waves... Generating single photons requires relying on the assumption that electrons are particles rather than what more and more evidence shows, a wave/field...
we don't get uncertainty after light passes a single slit. like a particle
The professor seems to imply that it our conscious act of measurement that collapses the probabilistic nature of particles. As if we are part of the experiment, instead of being an external observer. That seems to make us 'special' in some way -- the reality arises because we observe. That's really interesting.
But I would like to put it slightly differently. Instead of saying that the probability wave collapses into a particle upon our observation, I would say that the wave collapses upon causation. Causation (related to the 'causality' in spacetime physics, I guess) means a permanent impact of an event. When we put a tape in the sensor, the photons will make a permanent causation (effect) in the alignment of the magnetic particles. Even if, theoretically, we could observe which way the photons went, it would make a permanent effect in our memory (some chemical atoms alignments in our brains). Therefore, it seems like our observation creates the reality but it is actually causation that creates the reality. We aren't special!
Its been proven that the mere presence of the conscious observer is indeed the determining factor. Indeed, in these types of experiment, we are quite literally part of the experiment. The quantum scientists have tried everything to rule that out of the equation, to be as objective as possible. But everytime, it only reinforces the fact that the conscious observer (or lack thereof) is what determines the outcome.
Can someone clarify something...
-yes he ruled out any interference from detectors
-but what about interference from recording equipment, like the proximity & use of MAGNETIC tape...?
YES!! I picked up on that too!
We cannot know what those 'nerds' actually thought/believed/did in that experiment, because this talk is just a guy who is talking about their experiment. Chinese whispers.
+ well.. but if you know u are firing particles one by one throuhght the slits u have already done the mesaureing and know these are individual particles flying. Why to detect them additonally at the slits at firstplace? ow, cause u want to know which slit it goes through.. but what's the point in that?
+M Sparkle thats racist
+Must Valge because even if you fire individual particles you stll get int., pattern so they derived that something but me happening ´´ on the way´´ so it looks like particle goes tru both slits and iteract with itself ...good place to look is slits.....
Heisenberg at emission mean dispersion(every electron send isn't IN the same quantum state at the sent moment but we can't to use it for precision determination of a rate of dispersion because we can create a ideal emitter, punctiform), if you send electron by electron probabilty for dispersion remain the same, spy observer after is creating a grid of polarization or transversal vector is decreased. The concentric positions of spots relatively to slits can't be explained by a quantum eraser or samthing else, because then the maxim for the spots must to be on a line emitter-slit- display.
one more thing , I see now what is not understand in first place, when you send a single electron for what appear interference because of a resonant remanent electromagnetic field create of electrons in their movement, and there if you have a laboratory you can test it, I was speacking until now about the influence of spy, what is polarization or tunneling IN this resoanant field.
man you want to change all theory?
What if I recorded the data and only showed it to a cat that would not understand the information, would I get an interference pattern or a particle pattern?
good question
+Akiva Potok From what I know of the experiment, it's the act of observing that changes the result of the experiment. Just plopping your cat in front of it and your walking away is the same as you observing. The fact you would know beforehand you were going to show the experiment to your cat would change it. It's still being observed.
+sa H But what if, instead of a cat, it was a really dumb person with limited education that just happened to walk into the lab, while everyone was at lunch and unknowingly observed the data?
+Akiva Potok The act of recording it in the first place, whether or not you showed it to your cat, would have already collapsed the wave
+isa ölmez I don't get what your point is.
this guy understood the experiment. i conclude he understands the principles involved.
If you put detectors at only one slit, would you get a combination of a wave and a particle in the same experiment because you aren't collecting data on one of the slits?
No. You get the particle pattern.
Having detector on only one slit is same as having them on both slits. If detector at the slit does not detect anything, it means the photon went trough other slit.
What if there were three slits and a detector in one?
Derek Zhang Two slit interference pattern.
A detector "at only one slit" means it is very close to the slit so an interference pattern could never develop since some of the photons (those being "detected") are destroyed immediately after traversing the slits. It's not about data collection, it's about physically blocking the photons from creating the interference pattern in the first place.
There is an example like atoms can be both in the slit, before and behind it:
Imagine you are throwing a ball (made from atoms) through the slit.
When You will take a picture of a ball where: One part of a ball is behind the slit and another part of a ball is before and the middle part of a ball is inside the slit
Tom Campbell is going to change the world forever.... Tom Campbell: MBT LA 2016 2 of 7 Quantum Mechanics
HDvids101 YES!
Have no idea why this appeared in my playlist since I’m not a fan of fringe science, and apparently the lecturer in the video is considered fringe, however I am often curious to see how various people explain the results of the double slit experiment.
The act of measuring a phenomenon affects the outcome. Before the measurement is taken, it's just a probability. After the measurement is taken, it's one thing or the other. Consciousness is needed to collapse probability into "reality," i.e., into an observable, measurable phenomenon. So, if consciousness is a byproduct of the neural activity in our brain, how can consciousness determine the conditions that give rise to it? It can't, unless it is a causal factor, a pre-existing condition.
The information would still be present as the result would be that the interference pattern is broken and thus there must have been a detector there, whether the detector gave any info or not, the mere presence of it in the system collapses the wave function. Feynman's book QED explains this very well. I didn't get it at all until I read that book.
This reminds me of a video game world, where you are looking forms pixels, where you are not the pixels go away. We are living in some gods teenagers computer game. The next next next... generation universe Sims game that randomly generates Sim consciousness. I've always wondered how nature seemingly blindnessly makes evolutionary dicisions, like how bug eating plants produce a smell like rotting flesh to attract insects, all the while not having the ability to smell or know what an insect is attracted to. Perhaps at this almost conscious quantum realm things are being decided
Mang, those God-damned plants know exactly how they smell.
Life mimics life
I quote from text:
"Photons exist as probability until we observe them thus turning into physical particles"
I wanna give my point of view on what that might means...
We tend to think of spacetime as a rubber sheet (with 4 dimentions) that 'upon' it planets rest, and galaxies rest and that's an elegant way we describe gravity as warps and stretches upon that 'rubber' sheet.
But the truth is that this 'sheet' actually - physically exists. Now don't ask me of what it might consist of, but rather think of it as... that space itself exists and plays a vital role in the forming of gravity (and other things possibly).
Now propability photons (photons that have not yet being observed) might actually be the very 'markings' of spacetime itself on a quantom level. (Tiny scale).
Propability exists as the 'tiny quantom texture' of spacetime
No, the wave collapses if we don't look at it if the detector is active.
Schrodinger was Austrian, not German.
Max Planck IS the father of quantum physics.
interesting... i behave differently when someone is observing me as well... usually the police when im trying to avoid a speeding ticket
What if no one ever looked the measurement screen, would the probability distribution ever materialise ? According to this explanation the diffraction pattern appears the moment it's being looked at (similarily as with the Schrodinger's cat) How does the electron know wheather a conscious observer ever looks at the measurement ? It makes more sense to associate the wave function collapse with the process of collecting information rather then witnessing.
Observation always involves touching the object being observed. Trying to touch the particle causes the particle to "definitely be someplace." But until it is touched (or not-touched) it is only "potentially someplace." That is to say, reality is a total procrastinator, always arriving at the last possible moment.
Scott Lahteine Yes. that's how it seems, reality materialises only when it's absolutely unavoidable.
I have my own explanation for those experiment
Two slit experiment:
The particle might have a magnetic field (especially electron and positron) which behaves like a wave. When they shoot the particle, the particle pass through just one hole, but the wave from magnetic field pass through both holes, and then when the particle pass through the hole, the wave are fragmented as shown at the experiment so the particle keeps bouncing through the waves side to side to absorb the energy fragmented until hit the wall. The problem of this experiment is that the detector might absorb the wave causing interference in the process.
Entanglement Experiment:
if the experiment are made using the electrons and positrons, the magnetic field around the particle might have North Pole and South Pole so, if is a magnetic field detector using to detect the spin, the particle will change to just one position. This way, no matter where the particles are in the universe, the measurements will be the same no matter where the electrons are apart in the universe, and in between positrons and electrons will be opposite (its like the pair of gloves), again no matter where they are in the universe so, I think there's a big mistake in that experiment that they couldn't find out yet.
Sorry about my rough English, I am Brazilian.
Sad but, Einstein was totally right. Until we not have a brilliant imagination like his, we'll never step forward, sorry folks but, this is a waist of time.
I think it might be the very potential that someone will see the measurement that causes the object to be a particle instead of a wave. Even if no one ever actually sees it, we all already know what the results would be, like with Schrödinger's cat, where, despite how no one has ever actually done the experiment, we all already know what would happen if actually done and done repeatedly (the cat would be alive half the time, and dead the other half). I dont completely trust this theory or the double slit experiment, but thats how it would work if it's true.
celio gouvea Experimenters are way ahead of you in eliminating the possibilities you raise. Further experiments point to "the overall determinism of the system" producing either wave-like or particle-like characteristics.
The only conclusion available is that, unless the wave (which corresponds to the particle) is constrained to be in some position (or not) by its interaction (or non-interaction) with *other* probability waves (such as the wave function of the detector) then it remains a spread-out wave and can interact with itself as observed - purely as a function of its probability of being in a certain place with a certain energy at a certain time.
Ow, that's a lot to put into one sentence. But it's been proven to be the case. If you calculate the wave function of the entire experiment, the results make sense. This seems to apply to all of reality. Things only have a probability of being in a certain place, but since everything we experience is made up of trillions of these tiny wave functions they function together - through the interaction of their combined probabilities - to "keep reality from flying apart."
What we experience at our huge scale looks nice and stable, but at the scales of electrons and in the world of electromagnetism things get a lot less concrete and a lot more fuzzy and weird.
There is clearly another explanation for this other than "when you observe it, it becomes a particle, and when you don't observe it, it's a probability" Something observing it doesn't just make it change completely.
Can someone cite the experiment that he describes where the detector is on but doesn't record and the interference pattern is restored? I've read about "delayed choice quantum erasers" but they are very complex and require entanglements. I've never read about an experiment with a simple detector doing that. Thanks!
I suspect there is no reliable experiment that establishes this.
what the double slit experiment demonstrates is basically one cant change what has already happened as far as paradox cycle
How can they say the recording equipment wasn't just causing interference and make the inference the inteference was cause by observing? not just some other force of the recording equipment which is using magnets n shit
ArdentPhoenix it is said in the video. They made the measuring appatratus on but not registering. And they had interference pattern.
I've also contacted physics experts and they've said the same thing, that detection devices (clumsy ones in fact!) cause it(though this is cutting edge). So i'm wondering what his source is for his claim at 2:43. I'm trying to ask him but I'm getting an error trying to register on his forum. But thank you I will try his channel
so we do live in a simulation
Yes.
Even more - any kind of consciousness is only possible in a virtual "Environment".
The diameter of the slant part of the corkscrew movement of the photon, is the diameter of the 4-d part of its oscillation. We can only measure the non-slanted, 3-d part of the corkscrew movement. This explains why quanta eg photons appear to move from one point to another without having traversed the 3-d distance between the points - they have gone from 3-d point A to 3-d point B via 4-d ie time travelled. We perceive it in 3-d. Same as a 2-d creature would see a 3-d movement - abbreviated.
Taoist/Buddhist/Yogic meditation may have all be based on the same ideas. They did it for hundreds of years without scientific evidence and just knew that the energy of the world around us is also part of us and thus we can influence the world around us with the development internal energy manipulation.
The fact that consciousness has an effect on quantum fluctuation fields has to say something about the mind, even if it is still not yet fully understood.
"life exists as a probability until we make a measurement" a bit scary but so fucking interesting
The universe existed for a long time before conscious human beings arrived.
Does this mean that with nobody to notice, no quantum activity ever took place? Or no wave function ever collapsed?
There is a detector on the end side of it. It detects precisely what happens. When we're not observing, the detector catches waves. When we're merely observing it, the detector catches "normal" matter pattern.
Well, are you suggesting first off that humans are the only form of consciousness in the universe? Bold hypothesis. For all we know, the universe itself may be a conscious entity, part of some greater...thing.
That is not exactly what I meant. It is not that WE observe it but our equipment that we set before the detector. So it's not a thing with "us". But if our interference on any level changes the way nature behaves and presents itself, it is more likely that we're the "great entity" ourselves. When you think about it, we can do whatever we want to do right? We're sort of Gods of the universe (given enough time). Nothing proves something on a higher level and us being a sort of parasites within its system. I am not sure how a big bang could be an inner part of any entity on any level. Is it sort of what happens when it has a hick up, a blurp? ;)
Also, it depends on your perception of time. An electron seemingly travels back in time and changes from wave to particle form when detectors are activated half way through the journey. If consciousness is indeed as relevant as anything else in order for anything to truly exist then it is meaningless that billions of years went by without consciousness(although the odds are we are not the only creatures to achieve consciousness here or in other realities).
It has been argued that God is always looking-God would be the original OBSERVER. It also explains why we all agree as to what reality is and why it remains even if we're not present. And we, as smaller parcels of consciousness, have only smaller effects on reality but not enough to change the whole picture. Just a thought. Who knows?
The simplest and the best explanation I have heard so far .
The Answer.
"Universe is ready to open it's secrets. Only you should know how to knock it's door" - Swami Vivekanand
The sages of India have identified this thousands of year ago and all the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita talk about is how to reveal the truth of universe.
The answer is not studying the objects (the Big Sun, Moon or small electron etc) but by studying the Observer and which means studying our own Mind. Again we need to understand it is not by ripping of the brain of a poor animal with scissors but by closing our eyes and studying the self.
"Intellect leaves us at point quite indecisive" because mind itself is bound and work under the laws of time and space and causation.
We have to go beyond the Mind. But how?
And the sages were very sincere to find it out. Many have spent half of their life sitting under a cave of standing on a feet under a tree. And the answer the found is this,
We have to stop our mind. And only when mind will stop the governor of the mind, the Real Atman (Self) can be known. Atman = brahm = essence of the universe. Now it's always an individual Experience and can not be published for all.
We are spirits and not the body declare the sages.
So many have realized the truth and they became the best of man kind. They attained the highest purity and they helped so many seekers to find the truth and attain permanent peace in there heart. They are the real Guru's in India.
You say and I quote, "The sages of India have identified this thousands of year ago and all the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita talk about is how to reveal the truth of universe." end quote.
Give us a couple names of these sages and what exactly did they identify? Also, provide a few references, mantras and or slokas, from the Vedas and or Gita, that explains how the truth is revealed?
So obviously then any interaction with a group of particles removes a piece as a form of interaction. This means that light, energy, matter, whatever, can be converted up or down into energy or back into denser forms of gravity and matter quantum states. The interaction meaning a result of one particle that is induced to exist, which meaning you must also induce a, say, a heavy dense item to exist (a piece of a black hole, becoming infinitely dense, yet still projects energy of a form.)
This can help explain how well 2 objects can work well together as specific combinations to produce specific energies, think of a heavy dense star with a certain form of elements/quantum states in space/time can produce specific forms of detectable energy, like our sun, producing a steady stream of uv, inferred, electrical, microwave, and radioactive energy types. We also have lightbulbs that perform certain tasks such as making light, using relatively simple elements and forms of energy.
Explains as well as a large universe puzzle of how light/high speed wavelength like particles and gravity will react to each other, such as light being bent around a huge dense item.
Also opens up to help describe how gravity does funny things at extremes, and why we have such a damn hard time detecting it or examining it easily, as soon as it interacts with something it's mark is left, just like in the photon Detector, as soon as it is observed it is spent and behaves amongst its affected particles. With certain relativity one might study it from a different point of view, but we have yet to isolate how specifically it works, but if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then 2 body's losing gravitational forms of space to each other would cause a tug, as the particles must share quantum states (1 quantum bit contains multiple pieces of information, as proven by a quantum computer's ability to work with quantum bits of information to get complex information back, now what makes no sense is that the information acts as though it doesn't want to be apart. May it be that space is a interaction on reality, so that gravity can physically have a way of marking space itself, meaning a form of detection is possible, but very difficult, instead we use a bowling ball on a bed of spandex. This helps us describe how a physical bending and stretching of space/time to cause heavy objects to come closer in a bed, by pulling the "fabric of space and time" to change the placement of another object. You see how a big object isn't pulled too much by a small one, but we know it happens.
Also helps to explain why an astronaut disappearing into the event horizon would make it appear they slow to a stop, then slowly fade out of existence. If gravity is also performing this particle/wave interaction through space, then the astronaut was a perfect Detector. Imagine the plate on top, now imagine the photons being gravity (which is probably just a form of keeping the quantum state intact and communicating with each other's quantum state) and as the particle/wave function interacts with the plate, it pulls it away from the right, and toward the emitter (this is the quantum action/equal reaction form of particle induction. Creating a particle that can push (light sails) must mean creation of a pulling force (gravitational pull.)
Going back to the the astronaut, the gravity pulls out a piece of light and makes the image darker, or in the case of gravity pulling something, redshifting to infrared energy. So this means that for one, the astronaut was very violently destroyed by a sudden death-by-particles-being-ripped-out-at-near-speed-of-light, and also means that the image slowed down to random chance of getting a partical/light wave/radio signal/emitted whatever by the object would be yanked out, think of a photograph laid in the summer sun, eventually our Detector would be wiped clean of any useful information, and zero exposure results in no destruction of the image, and would be a negative reading. Remember they shot thousand of photons, not trillion, eventually a trillion would destroy the pattern and make a smear of unfocused light. Probably.
So eventually the astronaut Detector would be virtually eliminated to our eyes and sensing equipment. Now what would happen if we tried putting 2 slots behind the astronaut. Would we be able to induce a pattern such as what is seen in the second plate, having detected the gravity? And so he would be pushed or pulled is the hardest question to answer.
The clincher comes at 2:35 - when they left the detectors on but just didn't collect any data, they got a diffraction pattern. Which implies that the conscious act of observing, or collecting the data, that made the difference as to whether light behaved as a wave or a particle.
Unfortunately, that didn't actually happen. Since it didn't (despite Campbell's erroneous description), you can't draw any such conclusions. It's not "a clincher" since it's not an accurate description of the experiment.
I listened to Richard Feynman's lecture once again, very carefully, and he did not invoke the agent of "consciousness." Instead he used terms such as "detection apparatus," etc. So as far as his lecture is concerned, you're right. But popularizers of the double slit experiment, such as Thomas Campbell (who does have a PhD in physics) and the animated Dr. Quantum, are stating that the conscious act of observing the electron destroys the interference pattern, or collapses the probability wave function, however you want to put it. And other interpreters also state emphatically that "non-observed" photons or electrons will produce an actual, physical diffraction pattern on the backboard, while "observed" photons will produce two bands on the backboard. That's why I have asked repeatedly for anyone claiming to be knowledgeable about the outcomes to show me the experiment, not just an explanation of it. I am still in a state of profound unknowing. If so many people are getting this so entirely wrong, and are propagating this "disinformation" that consciousness collapses the wave function, why doesn't some eminently qualified scientist come forward and set the record straight?
There have been a number of experiments over the years that have proported to have finally locked down the nature of the double slit experiment into more classical terms but none of them have gained much traction. Fact of the matter is, you still have to use the prescribed quantum mechanics to get to a set up where subatomic particles behave in a way we're more comfortable with. In short, it's a bit of a mystery. What you make of that mystery is your own business but I've heard it said that it's a question "you're not allowed to ask" in physics. We say the wave function collapses and there is no further "why?" That's all we have to work with and, in science, you can only build on what you already know, so we're at a bit of a standstill there (at least for now), unfortunately.
"The wave function collapses" is a mathematical concept. It just means the particle isn't realized (in a mathematical sense) until it's measured. I'm not sure what "why" question you're asking. Why the math works so extraordinarily well? If you figure that out, you can pick up your Nobel Prize. Of course people are asking.
I agree with your other comments.
HarshColby Are you a physicist? Have you done the math? You're making some pretty emphatic statements about this experiment and the mathematics involved, and about the exclusion of consciousness in quantum measurements. I'm not being adversarial here, I just need to know if you have the background to back up your strong opinions.
Double shit experiment: what happens if you throw a shit through 2 narrow shit holes ? The shit splits in 2 smaller shits, interferes with itself and then a wave of bullshit comes out on the other side.
What photon detector? How exactly does this mysterious detector work?
It's not 'mysterious'. It's called a photomultiplier tube, and it is a camera that converts photons to electrons.
+Ernst Stavro Blofeld
Ever hear of cameras, eyes, photo sensitive paper, spectroscopes?
you realise what you're saying means that the photon gets absorbed, and thus doesn't hit the back wall right?
Rough Boulder What's your point? Anything qualifies as a detector. You can also place quarter wave plates at the slit to mark the polarization, and the photons will pass through and hit the back wall.
Jeremy Yarbro 1. "anything" is way too broad of a term, what you're really wanting to say is that anything that can measure which path it takes, directly interacts with and changes the photon (every measurement is an interaction, but not every type interaction is a measurement) 2. polarizing filters absorb/deflect most of the light that would have otherwise hit the back wall, 3. you can get interference patterns with polarizing filters
there was a flaw in the experiment , they just didn't find it. when the recorder created a load on the detector circuit the two bands appeard on the target. when the detector had no load output show multible band, when detector is off output show multible bands, when detector is loaded output show only two bands.
Does anyone have any information on the experiment he claims was done in which the "which-path" information of the photos was detected and sent to recording devices, but the not recorded (by supposedly not having the recording tapes in) resulting in an interference pattern?
I can find nothing on it anywhere else and it seems to contradict everything I'm finding.
No. As it would be a major discovery if such an experiment effectively happened, I'm pretty sure he is describing a fictive experiment that would provide evidence for his "My Big TOE" theory. He's probably just making up facts.
If this experiment existed, we would know about it.
Pablo Rages It wasn't duplicated because it wasn't done in the first place. He is misrepresenting experiments like 'delayed choice quantum eraser' in a way such as it provide support for his views.
The real experiments are different and therefore give different results, which sadly for him don't support his hypothesis.
Pablo Rages Yes, a "single particle" passing through multiple slits produce the pattern.
But if there is any detector on one slit with the "head of the tape still oscillating" you don't get any pattern, even if you remove the tape.
If you put a detector that detects which slit the particle went through, you don't get any pattern even if you don't record or look at it. That is the lie that Thomas Campbell is telling us to sell his book.
Pablo Rages Yes, if you tag the photons and mark which slit they went through by polarising one slit by 90° and the other slit by 0°, you loose the pattern, even if you have no detector at all.
This is almost exactly the opposite to what Thomas Campbell was pretending at 2:50
If you then put a polarizer after the slits at 45° you are "erasing" the tagging which makes the pattern appear again.
@@TakeoFR it was done a while ago in secret… result have been withheld from public knowledge under the “truth embargo”… truth offers nothing but destruction for those who live in a world of lies.
My hero Robert Anton Wilson said:
-"In Quantum Mechanics..Any description of the universe which leaves you out is inaccurate. Because any description of the universe is a description of the instrument you use to take your reading of the universe. And if the only system you use is your own nervous system (NS) then you have to include your own NS in the description of the universe. So any model we make doesn't describe the universe, it describes what our brains are capable of saying at this time.“
The interference pattern disappears because when you have a detector at one of the slits, the particles become resolved particles which pass through just one slit. Without the slit detector the particles can pass through both slits and hence interfere with itself. The possibility of interfering with itself must exist for an interference pattern to exist. The detector resolved the particle at just one slit. Also, consciousness has nothing to do with it. You don't need a conscious observer. You simply have to have unresolved particles with the possibility of multiple paths for interference to occur.
"The interference pattern disappears because when you have a detector at one of the slits, the particles become resolved particles which pass through just one slit. "
No, it doesn't. It disappears because there is which path information available.
"Without the slit detector the particles can pass through both slits and hence interfere with itself. "
One particle does not pass through both slits.
"Also, consciousness has nothing to do with it."
Sure it does. You cannot separate consciousness from observation of the information.
+Jeremy Yarbro "No, it doesn't. It disappears because there is which path information available."
This is as sensible a comment as could be expected of you.
Well there is the pilot wave theory also. That is that it was always a particle and may have its own characteristics but the interference is due to another underlying wave phenomenon associated with the space and the system. The pilot wave theory is experiencing renewed interest recently.
The Artificial Society Pilot wave theory is pseudoscience.
if it's about which-path information, then single slit would not show interference, but it does.
These are all interesting ideas. I’ve followed Susskind for years with great interest. In my mind he is one of the greatest physicists living. He also has an uncanny knack of being right about things, although I’m getting a little discouraged about String Theory evidence. His work on black holes is which led to the hologram idea is promising. Lloyd I only started following very recently. There are countless questions. The next 50 years should be interesting.
I was foolish enough to believe this guy for several years and make friends believe him too...
Turns out this is B.S.
Read up on it yourself, you'll see.
Can you give a hint on what to look for that made you change your mind?
Absolutely agree this quantum quackery has set science back one hundred years it is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of light
There is no such thing as a photon you xannot fire a single photon
You can do this same experiment with a needle fire a laser onto the body of a needle and on the wall behind you get the same interference pattern
light is not a wave a wave is what something does not what something is
Quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of physics. Show me your exact research and why you would think quantum mechanics isnt legitamite? Just because you dont understand it? News flash, nobody does.
What if you observed the light photon halfway between the slits and the measurement screen? Does that pull the pattern closer together? If observation is the thing that changes wave to particle surely this is what should happen?
This is not how I understand how this phenomena occurs. It's not a conscious issue but a measurement one as the act of "observation" or measuring changes photon, it bombards the photon with a fractional amount of energy. This changes its properties as it will absorb some of that energy when it is hit, therefore changing how it acts.
Surely that makes more sense than the photon is affected by our conscience? Other wise we would not even have to observe, we'd just be conscience of it to affect it.
Is it because small particles have virtually no mass thus don't experience time thus are expressed to us as a wave function, when we observe we assign time thus position is assigned and the wave function collapses. The greater the mass or number of atoms in a material or body the greater the accumulation of energy exchanges which is time.
The Matirx red pill - even a almost weightless particle at the speed of light should have massive mass - or we simply address the elephant in the room, which is light is not particles. When light hits glass, it immediately slows to 2/3 of it speed, and immediately goes back to normal speed when it leaves. Photons are a made up concept, light is only a field.
The Matirx red pill: how is it the wall or paper the light is shown on does not change in mass? If I put my paper under 1oo watt bulb and then under Sun light I get no change either. The photo electric effect suggest waves and not particles. A solar cell seems more like a tuned receiver. Photons have no mass because they don't exist. It like imaginary numbers. Put them in to balance an equation we don't fully understand and as long as the outcome is what was expected every one agrees to just go with it.
This completely wrong. When the detectors were left on, they were still collecting data, The interference pattern disappeared and two bands appeared on the screen whether the observers were in the room or not. They could have recorded the pattern on the screen with a camera and it would have shown the same result. Notice the screen is effectively collecting data as well. He is conflating "observing" and "looking" (by humans) with "detecting" or "measuring" (made by instruments). The apparatus collecting the data is not conscious.
He might just as well have said that - when Newton allowed a beam of white light to pass through a prism and observed that the light was separated into its component colors - if Newton had left the room, the prism would have stopped dispersing the light. This is false.
Campbell is also saying that that the quantum world behaves the same as the macro world. This is also not true.
At the quantum level, the detector or detectors interfere with the photons by taking information from them, measuring their location and causing the waves to behave like particles. As Heisenberg said, you cannot know the exact location and momentum of a particle - such as an electron - at the same time. The more information you have about its location, the less you know about its momentum, and vice versa. Light particles have no mass, but they do have momentum. This is why you can measure the speed of light.
Things exist because we OBSERVE them, otherwise they exist as a probability. We create the universe by our observation.
+Naoki Kashima -Does that mean that, say, the Moon does not exist, when no on is looking at it?
+Jon Doe well we'll never know now will we because how can you know something without asking someone or you figuring out? lol
Jon Doe
The point is there is always someone looking at the moon, also there are pictures (data) about the moon showing that it exists. If* all our memories were erased (all the ET beings memories were erased as well), all the data (like photos) taken about the moon were erased. Then... the moon will have a 'probability' of existing. The next time someone looks up that probability will collapse and either the moon will be there or it won't, or it will be replaced by something else... We truly make the universe as we observe it. Also, the number of minds in the universe is one. We are all the same being which is experiencing the reality subjectively. This means that God is within us all. O:-)
Naoki Kashima -With all due respect, but I think that what you said (wrote) is nonsense.
In short, I am siding with Democritus here, and not with Plato.
Jon Doe Everyone is entitled to his/own own opinions of course. However, please be aware that modern science only focuses on the physical. One can not remove the observer from the experiment. There are experiments in physics that had a different outcome depending on the observer (all other factors were identical). You observing the light collapses that probability wave into a particle, otherwise it is a wave.
How I perceive this is, the little particles are like people that need supervision to behave. When no one is watching they do whatever they want. But under supervision they behave. And because they are people they know.
I don't know Donald Sutherland was a scientist. ;)
No, he's an actor, and probably that's why he's speaking nonsense here.
The only mystery with the two slit experiment is why single photons being emitted through two slits one at a time can display something that looks like interference. This implies that the electrons that are absorbing the photons in the path to the detectors must be going through some change in response that affects probability of emitting the photon in the direction of the dark bands. So what is the change? Is there some sort of refractory period? THIS is where you should look.
I wonder what would happen if you shoot semen through the double slit. Would it behave like a particle or a wave?
+Hamza Ferzghi that's what I would assume.
Hmm its all about how much semen you shoot i think if you shoot enough its should act like a wave
Also, Campbell implies that leaving the detectors at the slits on, but not recording their data, causes the photons to act as waves, while when recording the data they act as particles. This is not consistend with the sources I read. There it is written that the photons act as waves when the detectors are off, but they act as particles when the detectors are on, whether you record the data or not. This leaves consciousness out of the picture completely.
Someone help me shed light on this.
I lost it at 0:42 when he forgot what Einstein had to do with the duality thing and stuttered. Does not bode well and I left to write this. good luck
Marc Abelha - field particle duality was something that Einstein never reconciled - if you analyse things under the conclusion that light has always been a field and is not particles, the equations balance.
Yes I understand that there is a huge discrepancy in the wave theory when a single photon is used in the
double slit experiment.
QUESTION:
Assuming exact control over the photon path to the double slit experiment.
When a single photon is repeatedly fired at the double slit, how can the photon reach either
slit IF it is aimed exactly at the mid point of the barrier between the double slit ?
ANSWER: Assuming exact control is wrong.
Maybe the detectors were designed intelligently enough that if they weren't recording anyway, that the detector automatically switched off the sensor electronics.
I expect them to go mad reproducing this experiment until they get meaningful results and determine what ACTUALLY happened in the original experiment. Because what he's describing is beyond reality and there has to be a simple explanation for the results they thought they were observing.
Instead of going along with someone else's conclusions about the meaning of the results which clearly can't be accurate. Did the original experimenters try leaving the building when they started up the experiment? They interpreted the results like this, and they didn't even try varying their OWN proximity to the instruments to see if that was a factor? What a bunch of malarkey.
Fortunately for scientists, yes, they did try every combination you might suggest. Not a single experiment showed any indication that human's watching the experiment has any effect whatsoever. The only change that makes a difference is the presence of a device to watch which slit the particle goes through. Whether the experimenter is asleep, in a different room, has a low IQ, or a watching very, very closely, the experiment produced the exact same results: The presence of the detector is all that matters.
Harsh Colby It seems logical then, to postulate that the sensor unit being placed at the slits is not a passive sensor, that it's emitting a field of some kind... which in turn dramatically affects the behavior of the particles being sent through the slits.
Brian Klock Basically, yes. But remember the detector can absorb the particle or otherwise change its energy or direction, and produce the same effect. In the case of photon, it's completely absorbed by the detector. You can't absorb half a photon. With electrons or larger particles, they can detect the particle without destroying it. It still gets affected, however, which is why the interference pattern goes away.
Brian Klock
Don't listen to Colby he doesn't know what he is talking about - always makes stuff up. Detectors have no effect on state wave vs. particle. This has already been thoroughly considered and dismissed. If anyone does come up with a hypothesis that can show how observing data via detectors changes waves/particles there is a Nobel prize for them. You don't need to agree that consciousness collapses wave function but I say it is a good indicator that it does.
TigroTom
What sort of detector can detect a single photon and then allow it to pass through unaffected?
Does our consciousness really affect reality, or just how we perceive reality?
RPKVids ....forever together
I think its funny how the deeper physics and science goes, the more God becomes a reality
sharpiedyourwhat That statement makes zero sense. Not everyone that believes in "God," is a "Young Earth Creationist."
sharpiedyourwhat So it's your "Dawkinized" opinion. Ah, well. Vote? That's a joke. The left/right paradigm is an illusion.
Actually over time, gods have become less of a reality as science has progressed. There used to be many gods to explain what we didn't understand, the god that held up the heavens, the god of war, the god of the sea, the god of thunder... As we came to understand how nature worked in these regards, those gods fell out of favor and now you would be hard pressed to find many who believed in Zeus or Ra or Apollo. Now, there is basically one god left. So over time god has not become more of a reality.
Michael Zito In my opinion, the more answers science provides, the more questions it raises. Quantam physics is running headlong into metaphysics. It's an exciting time.
In my view, metaphysics is outside of what we would call quantum physics. I'm not even sure metaphysics can even be defined, it certainly can not produce measurements and demonstrable results. I believe to say physics is running into metaphysics is just to say that we don't yet fully understand things. And that is certainly true. At one point how the planets moved through the heavens was metaphysics. now we know differently. But I agree, it is an exciting time. If you've seen any of Larry Krauses' lectures, he points out how we may very well live in the only time in our universe where we can potentially know the most about how it came to be. In trillions of years there will still be stars and other galaxies, but due to the ever increasing expansion of space-time, nothing from outside our galaxy will be able to reach us. The speed at which the universe is expanding will exceed that of light. No light, or other radiation from outside our galaxy will be able to reach us. The cosmic background radiation will be red shifted to essentially infinite wavelength and not be detectable. That means all evidence of anything outside our galaxy, even the big bang, will be erased. Scientists in that time will discover physics, they will derive Maxwell's Equations and quantum mechanics, but when they look up into the night sky, they will see the universe we believed in before Hubble. Only one galaxy - ours with nothing outside it.
Here's how it works: "There is no particle until it's measured, until there, it's only probability.". My interpretation of this is that the world if a simulation based on probabilities, when we try to measure it, it "solidifies" into the known form of particle.
Thank you for this comment! That makes sense
This is actually so inspiring. I’m writing this down
proof life is a simulation?
photon gambling anyone?
Scary isnt it. Thats the first thing i thought when i seen this
its a shame i was never taught physics at school at all, i would of loved to have learned this stuff and work towards a career in it, so interesting
its jesus and the angels moving the electrons around
Unfortunatelly the original scientific paper that explains the double slit experiment send each electron at a time is not in the public domain!
American Journal of Physics -- March 1976 -- 44 (3), pp. 306
On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena
P. G. Merli1, G. F. Missiroli2, and G. Pozzi2
American Journal of Physics -- March 1976 -- Volume 44, Issue 3, pp. 306
On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena
P. G. Merli, G. F. Missiroli, and G. Pozzi
Nice story but all these truth about cosmos came out only after the discovery of Vedas (5000 BC and an oral tradition before that) by the British/German looters in India in the 17th and 18th century. We all know that Pythagoras, Plato and socrates studied in India.
Hindu Vedic book Rig veda (5000 BC) clearly says that Energy and matter are Inter-convertible. It also talks about electromagnetic field
According to Advaita philosophy of Hinduism by Adi-Shankaracharya (2000 BC)
"All that you see does not exist"..which is validated by the so called double slit experiment.
West thought that earth was the center of the universe (Geocentric) until 300 to 400 yrs ago but brilliant hindu mathematician and astronomer Aryabhatta (2750 BC) was the first to say from vedas that Sun is the center of the universe (Heliocentric).
Smart people of the west sent Galileo to exile for repeating Vedas by saying that Earth rotated around the sun. LOL
Earth goes around the sun - Rg Veda 10. 22. 14. and Yajur Veda 3. 6.
Sun and whole universe are round - Yajur Veda 20. 23
Shape of Earth is like an Oblate Spheroid. (Rig VedaXXX. IV.V)
Moon is enlightened by the sun - Yajur Veda 18, 20.
‘Earth is flattened at the poles’ (Markandeya Purana 54.12)
Blue Sky is Nothing but scattered sunlight (Markandeya Purana 78.8)
There are many suns - Rg Veda 9. 114. 3.
Seven colours in the sun - Atharva Veda 7. 107. 1.
Electromagnetic field, conversion of mass and energy - Rg 10. 72.
The gravitational effect of solar system makes the earth stable (R.V.1-103-2, 1-115-4 and 5-81-2).
The axle of the earth does not get rusted and the earth continues to revolve on its axle (R.V. 1-164-29)
The Sun never sets or rises and it is the earth, which rotates (Sama-Ved 121).
The gravitational effect of solar system makes the earth stable (R.V.1-103-2, 1-115-4 and 5-81-2).
Blue Sky is Nothing but scattered sunlight (Markandeya Purana 78.8)
The science of Time and its subtle nature is described in (R.V.1-92-12 and 1-95-8)
Source: Ajith Vadakayil blog
That's funny because other vedas suggest that the earth is cubical...
Rig Veda 10.58.3 Thy spirit, that went far away, away to the four-cornered earth.
And the Brahmanas...
Satapatha Brahman 6.1.2.29 …Now this earth is four-cornered, for the quarters are her corners: hence the bricks are four-cornered; for all the bricks are after the manner of this earth.
Also do they suggest that the earth is flat...
Rig Veda 1.33.8 Decorated with gold and jewels, they were spreading all over the four sides of the earth ; Although they hastened, they o’ercame not Indra: he dispersed them with the (rising) sun.
Doesn't a cube have 8 corners though? A 2 dimensional square has 4 corners.
You're right, a square has 4 corners, a cube has 8.
So did the people who wrote the Vedas believe the earth was flat with 4 corners?
Apparently.
So, if I make a decision and my wife isn’t around to observe the process, am I still wrong?
What BS. But i guess it sells books.. Sad
His book is free.
What are you talking about? His website sells numerous titles.
I guess what we learn about physics in college is BS too then. Sad...
So exactly how does what you learned conflict with his interpretation of the double slit experiment? The so-called "wave is collapsed by the observer's awareness of what happens at the slit, not by the presence of a measuring device. This was known form the beginning by most QM specialists, but is no longer in question based on experiments of the last 20 years.
I guess you know better than renowned physicists... (sarcasm)
The only thing we can factually conclude is that whatever causes the particles' path has a connection to our brain (consciousness) and probably the entire universe. You should also probably conclude that this phenomenon happens to every single particle in the universe, even ourselves and our brain.
God's so smart!
3DBall Pinball - god is actually having a chuckle that we believe this BS - light is not a particle, it is a field, and when you receive (see or record) you take energy away from the experiment - its that simple.
Deflection creates waves post deflection measurement records result. Pre-deflection measurement records the perception of non-deflection. Or, at the first wall the light had not yet deflected and therefore the result recorded was based on light that had not been deflected. The probable end result was it continued in a straight line. A third wall and measurement might help solve any doubts. Or another way to put it is the measurement at the first wall was premature, in time, before the event, a picture of a car just before it crashes would make it appear traveling straight ahead. Time was the factor creating the different results.
Technically (with respect to the detector) due to the interaction between the photon and the detector. Though that would be deceptive since with respect to the observer, the wave-functions of the particles in the detector don't collapse yet until the observer interacts with them.
So it's interaction that does it, but interaction is relative to what or who is doing the measuring.
Schrödinger and Einstein rejected the Copenhagen interpretation, being explained here. If the Schrödinger equation is taken seriously, you will end up with the ‘Many World’s Interpretation’ by Hugh Everett. The re are several other interpretations but, the measurement problem remains unresolved
this guy's got the last bit wrong. It's not whether you record the result or not, it's whether the detectors (you only need one, really) are set up and working. If they could conceivably tell you which slit the photon went through, you don't get an interference pattern, whether you were present or not doesn't make any difference. This is a purely real physical effect - it does NOT depend on you being a conscious observer. All that is needed to destroy the possibility of measuring an interference pattern, is that it is possible to tell which slit the photon went through, even if you weren't actually there, and just record the data and don't look at it until years later.
Not quite. He says they left the observation instruments on but took no readings and the particles acted as a wave. The interference came when there was observation not instrumental monitoring. This stuff bends my head. In a good way!
This Experiment also works with a C60, a Buckminster-Fulleren, so there's no "collapsing waveform".