Let's break it down
Evidence shows that quantum particles can react to one another from seemingly anywhere in the universe. Evidence also shows that the mere observation of somthing can effect the quantum state of the universe.
Already covered that
If you put it together
that is as in.. look at the 2 theories as 2 pieces of the same picture rather than isolated occurances.
you will see that upon observation of somthing,
RIGHT HERE.. is where we have a problem. Waht is TRUE Obervation?
Is it us consciously being aware of somthing? Accordingly... wehn somthing is observed it is changed.... NOW compare this with the Particles in the EPR Paradox.. the ones that have an effect on one another..in essense "communicate" over distances faster than Light. Concidering that all things in the universe must follow the same quantum laws... Why couldn't this aply to the True nature of Obseration. It seems to me the only way that makes sense.. the only way to explain how somthing can be changed upon observation. Observation in this respect, would be the observer and the oberved, becoming as the entangled particles, are communicating on a quantum level...
the quantum states of waht is being observed and the observer become entangled, and thus can react to one another.
If the universe at large is subject to the same essential rules..
By way of relative perception, we would believe that the door only swings one way, and that the observer only reacts to the observed, however, as all of this evidence shows, the door in fact swings both ways. Wehn you are looking at somthing, hearing somthing, or even thinking of somthing you become inectricably connected to it, no matter wah it is. The atomic structure doesn't matter, the distance doesn't matter, AND perhaps even TIME doesn't matter.
Basically here I'm just reiterating that:
Wehn you observe somthing.. you become "In-Tune" to it, on some quantum level... Wahtever forces and processes are occuring in your brain that make up you observing somthing, is being in some way shared with waht you are observing. You stare at it and it stares back... Waht part actual "consciousness" plays in this I would say is irrelevant.
It would seem that in the quantum universe, that things like distance and time don't really matter.... Which is why relativity goes out the window..
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I am god!
I am god!Follow
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Blah blah blah wrote:
Mind showing me this evidence, or do you insist on mere speculation on what again shows itself to be your EXTREME lack of understanding of every physics concept you have ever posted on. But what do i know, im only a physicist.
BLah Blah Blah
EP, you crack me the Fu[/b]ck Up with your utterly barbaric ignorance.
I'm pretty much conviced that you are in NO WY a physicist. Not after the total idiocy I've seen spewing from you.
Ego wrote:
[b]Evidence shows that quantum particles can react to one another from seemingly anywhere in the universe.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Einstein-Podolsky-RosenParadox.html
Ego wrote:
Evidence also shows that the mere observation of somthing can effect the quantum state of the universe.
WEll.. If you need me to provide you with "proof" of that one.. then you're to fu[/b]ckin dumb for me to even be associating with.... Have you read up on ANY Quantum Theory?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-measurement/
[b]READ IT! FU[b]CKER!![/b]
....the Einstein Rosen Bridge theory is just that... a theory, not evidence, not proof, just a interesting possibility.
And even if it is true, your original post takes it WAY outa context.
And as for the observing effects quantum states, i never argued agaisnt that one.
The point is kelv, you yet again show half *** science and mix it with crappy attempts to sound intellectual and deep. You may fool a few people, but i assure you not everyone just looks at the big words and oogles at your greatness.
God, eh? So you're responsible for this mess?
You dumbass.
You dumbass.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
If you put it together[/b]
that is as in.. look at the 2 theories as 2 pieces of the same picture rather than isolated occurances.
you will see that upon observation of somthing,
RIGHT HERE.. is where we have a problem. Waht is TRUE Obervation?
Is it us consciously being aware of somthing? Accordingly... wehn somthing is observed it is changed.... NOW compare this with the Particles in the EPR Paradox.. the ones that have an effect on one another..in essense "communicate" over distances faster than Light. Concidering that all things in the universe must follow the same quantum laws... Why couldn't this aply to the True nature of Obseration. It seems to me the only way that makes sense.. the only way to explain how somthing can be changed upon observation. Observation in this respect, would be the observer and the oberved, becoming as the entangled particles, are communicating on a quantum level...
By way of relative perception, we would believe that the door only swings one way, and that the observer only reacts to the observed, however, as all of this evidence shows, the door in fact swings both ways. Wehn you are looking at somthing, hearing somthing, or even thinking of somthing you become inectricably connected to it, no matter wah it is. The atomic structure doesn't matter, the distance doesn't matter, AND perhaps even TIME doesn't matter.
Basically here I'm just reiterating that:
Wehn you observe somthing.. you become "In-Tune" to it, on some quantum level... Wahtever forces and processes are occuring in your brain that make up you observing somthing, is being in some way shared with waht you are observing. You stare at it and it stares back... Waht part actual "consciousness" plays in this I would say is irrelevant.
It would seem that in the quantum universe, that things like distance and time don't really matter.... Which is why relativity goes out the window..
that is as in.. look at the 2 theories as 2 pieces of the same picture rather than isolated occurances.
you will see that upon observation of somthing,
RIGHT HERE.. is where we have a problem. Waht is TRUE Obervation?
Is it us consciously being aware of somthing? Accordingly... wehn somthing is observed it is changed.... NOW compare this with the Particles in the EPR Paradox.. the ones that have an effect on one another..in essense "communicate" over distances faster than Light. Concidering that all things in the universe must follow the same quantum laws... Why couldn't this aply to the True nature of Obseration. It seems to me the only way that makes sense.. the only way to explain how somthing can be changed upon observation. Observation in this respect, would be the observer and the oberved, becoming as the entangled particles, are communicating on a quantum level...
By way of relative perception, we would believe that the door only swings one way, and that the observer only reacts to the observed, however, as all of this evidence shows, the door in fact swings both ways. Wehn you are looking at somthing, hearing somthing, or even thinking of somthing you become inectricably connected to it, no matter wah it is. The atomic structure doesn't matter, the distance doesn't matter, AND perhaps even TIME doesn't matter.
Basically here I'm just reiterating that:
Wehn you observe somthing.. you become "In-Tune" to it, on some quantum level... Wahtever forces and processes are occuring in your brain that make up you observing somthing, is being in some way shared with waht you are observing. You stare at it and it stares back... Waht part actual "consciousness" plays in this I would say is irrelevant.
It would seem that in the quantum universe, that things like distance and time don't really matter.... Which is why relativity goes out the window..
Again you just dont get it kelv. "Observing" is not just being aware, it is the eact of measuring the system that disrupts it. And yes, you do intereact with your surrounding system and therby the quantum states, and those quantum states may have some interaction on some interdimensional level, but thats advanced conclusions even for modern day string theory.
So there you are again, taking half conclusions, pluggin in childish philosophies into it, and mixing quantum mechanics with macro philosophical ideas. Im sure you can post another thousand links to the papers you think comfirm your thoughts, but all you succeed to do is prove that you have no idea what eany of it means.
BTW, i like your new avatar.
At least I try. I never claimed to be a scientist. People know how am am, and I accept that and revel in it.
I think, however, that if everyone thought like you do, we'd still be hunting out food and be having family hour sitting around a fire-pit.
OHH Forgive me for trying to brainstorm.. waht was I thinking?
http://www.ahisee.com/content/epressay.html
Waht isn't a theory?
I mean, you are offering nothing to the contrary other than to say that "it hasn't been shown before, so it must be ****************
You,
Are a troll
Got a link as to waht the true nature of observation is? I'd love to see it. YOu are using general terms like "measuring" yet Where is the line drawn between mathematical calulation and subconscious observation? Should it not all be concisered to have some mathematical basis, regardless of whether you are working out of a text-book, or whether the human mind can interpret things that we are not consciously aware of?
YOu have no proof of the contrary.. you can't argue like that.
Edited, Sat Oct 8 12:25:53 2005 by Kelvyquayo
I think, however, that if everyone thought like you do, we'd still be hunting out food and be having family hour sitting around a fire-pit.
Quote:
but thats advanced conclusions even for modern day string theory.
OHH Forgive me for trying to brainstorm.. waht was I thinking?
Quote:
the Einstein Rosen Bridge theory is just that... a theory, not evidence
http://www.ahisee.com/content/epressay.html
Waht isn't a theory?
I mean, you are offering nothing to the contrary other than to say that "it hasn't been shown before, so it must be ****************
You,
Are a troll
Quote:
"Observing" is not just being aware, it is the eact of measuring the system that disrupts it.
Got a link as to waht the true nature of observation is? I'd love to see it. YOu are using general terms like "measuring" yet Where is the line drawn between mathematical calulation and subconscious observation? Should it not all be concisered to have some mathematical basis, regardless of whether you are working out of a text-book, or whether the human mind can interpret things that we are not consciously aware of?
YOu have no proof of the contrary.. you can't argue like that.
Edited, Sat Oct 8 12:25:53 2005 by Kelvyquayo
kelv, im not trashing you, just trying to clue you in that your conclusions in that post do nothing but show the original writers limited understanding of the subject. And as for the "Advanced COnclusions for even string theory", i didnt mean that in a good way, as in to smart, i meant it as irresponsible presumptions made by people with only a superficial understanding of the subject.
It just seems like your trying to grab something more out of yet another physics concept that you have never studied. Kinda reminds me of some other posts where you were completely conviced your view was correct when all you were doing was miscontruing the science at hand, or the half science you presented.
It just seems like your trying to grab something more out of yet another physics concept that you have never studied. Kinda reminds me of some other posts where you were completely conviced your view was correct when all you were doing was miscontruing the science at hand, or the half science you presented.
ok
well, could I ask that you humour me for a moment and attempt to answer some questions for me?
1)Waht is the connection or the medium that causes the actual "Change" brought on by observation or "measurement"?
2)Waht is the nature of the "communication" between quantumly linked particles.. the communication that is apparently faster than light?
3)They are aleady about to make computers that utilize this, how can you say that it is still just a theory?
4)Waht are the implications of the fact that a particle seemingly can act in disregard to the limitations of distance and time?
5)Could you not also logically add Human Thought to this process as the "measurer" and conclude that on some level human thought exists in this "distantless and timeless quantum realm"?
DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!
Edited, Sat Oct 8 13:48:42 2005 by Kelvyquayo
well, could I ask that you humour me for a moment and attempt to answer some questions for me?
1)Waht is the connection or the medium that causes the actual "Change" brought on by observation or "measurement"?
2)Waht is the nature of the "communication" between quantumly linked particles.. the communication that is apparently faster than light?
3)They are aleady about to make computers that utilize this, how can you say that it is still just a theory?
4)Waht are the implications of the fact that a particle seemingly can act in disregard to the limitations of distance and time?
5)Could you not also logically add Human Thought to this process as the "measurer" and conclude that on some level human thought exists in this "distantless and timeless quantum realm"?
DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!
Edited, Sat Oct 8 13:48:42 2005 by Kelvyquayo
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
ok
well, could I ask that you humour me for a moment and attempt to answer some questions for me?
1)Waht is the connection or the medium that causes the actual "Change" brought on by observation or "measurement"?
2)Waht is the nature of the "communication" between quantumly linked particles.. the communication that is apparently faster than light?
3)They are aleady about to make computers that utilize this, how can you say that it is still just a theory?
4)Waht are the implications of the fact that a particle seemingly can act in disregard to the limitations of distance and time?
5)Could you not also logically add Human Thought to this process as the "measurer" and conclude that on some level human thought exists in this "distantless and timeless quantum realm"?
DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!
Edited, Sat Oct 8 13:48:42 2005 by Kelvyquayo
well, could I ask that you humour me for a moment and attempt to answer some questions for me?
1)Waht is the connection or the medium that causes the actual "Change" brought on by observation or "measurement"?
2)Waht is the nature of the "communication" between quantumly linked particles.. the communication that is apparently faster than light?
3)They are aleady about to make computers that utilize this, how can you say that it is still just a theory?
4)Waht are the implications of the fact that a particle seemingly can act in disregard to the limitations of distance and time?
5)Could you not also logically add Human Thought to this process as the "measurer" and conclude that on some level human thought exists in this "distantless and timeless quantum realm"?
DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!
Edited, Sat Oct 8 13:48:42 2005 by Kelvyquayo
1. There no connection in the sense you are thinking of, i beleive your trying to make a reference to the heisinberg uncertainty principle when is just a relation to the inverse accuracy measurements of momentum and position (the more accurately you measure the position the less accurate your momentum is.) I cant remember how many times i found the momentum in a wave equation so accurately that i could then never find my homwork(corny physics joke).
2. Speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, "communication" on a quantum level addresses a large gambit of subjects, i would need you to specify what type of communication you want to know about and what type of particles.
3. Quantum computers utilize quantum signaling statistics to send messages at an outstanding rate. This has nothing to do with anything i called a theory (even though all of quantum mechanics is theoretical).
4. Not sure what you are asking here, can you give some examples that act with disregard to distance and time?
5. This is the question that i was attacking so vehimately from the start. The answer is no, you keep trying to derive a macroscopic quantum relation to nueral activity. Your assuming that since everything is made up of smaller particles, and that those smaller particles "may" be part of some interdimensional membrane as in string theory, then perhaps everything interacts on that level. The point here is that even if your making a few rather sophmoric assumptions, namely:
1. We can control quantum reactions with our mind
2. The quantum makeup of a system connect to some magical realm of anti space time and thus everything made up by that system is connected.
This last question you keep on asking has continued to be nothing more than an attempt to place something supernatural on some misconstrued physics concepts. As you stated, your not an expert on physics, you dont have to prove it to us over and over again by posting on it.
Edited, Sat Oct 8 16:39:02 2005 by EvilPhysicist
Recent Visitors: 165
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (165)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I am god!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC