Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Whatever man. I'm done with your dumb points. Ignore the data if you wish. Some Scientists aren't.

 

you're a stupid theosophist cultist - you probably dont even know bailey or have read blavatsky - not to mention you have no idea of the three secret masters - you sir are a joke. adding physics makes you a dweeb on top of a cultist.

you have never heard of dogchen - you're a snail of spirituality

fuck you and buh bye

 

Actually I have heard of all of them and have The Secret Doctrine on my computer and then a hard copy of a commentary on the Secret Doctrine. And you sound like a newb by calling me a "cultist". I'm not associated with any Cult. And The Occult is completely different than a Cult.

 

Waves and particles behave this way under certain specific conditions. So I would posit that if such conditions existed somewhere in nature (with no human influence, or conscious being involved) one would expect the same behavior.

The LHC and double slit experiments are just as natural as anything else, as we are part of nature as well as the things we build. There is nothing inherently unnatural about any of it. I don't think anything unnatural can exist in nature, that would be paradoxical.

I see this thread is starting to devolve into flaming, I wish no part of that. When flame wars begin useful discussion tends to halt and catch fire (this part isn't intended for you NST)

 

How do they behave the rest of the time?

 

Like particles and waves do, the exact behavior depends on the environmental conditions, how close they are to other particles and fields, stuff like that.

 

"The first gulp from the glass of Natural Sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." -Werner Heisenberg, Father of Quantum Mechanics

 

Here is yet another experiment done. Please drop the bias and read the full article. I tried to access the full study but my computer wouldn't take me to the page. It's referenced in the article. Maybe someone else will have better luck? I say this because I don't want it to seem that I'm just posting only a "New Age" source. http://www.nextext.o...um-physics.html

 

Here I found the full study...http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949v1.pdf

 

So let me see if I've got this right.

There's quantum decoherence going on all around us, but I cannot see it, because, incidentally, every time I look, the decoherence has already taken place. And because most physicists think this is true, this is therefore a much more plausible idea than the possibility that my observation causes the wave function to collapse, even though, obviously, my observation coincides with the observation of particles, every single time I look at something.

And "observing" a wave function with a device causes it to collapse, because it's causing a decoherence just like the natural world is. But I can't possibly observe this decoherence taking place. However, it's safe to assume this decoherence is taking place, because most physicists think so. It's not, on the other hand, okay to assume that the wave/particle is physically linked to the observer.

In other words, though a recording device and a human being both work to determine whether something is a particle or a wave, this determination itself can't be dictating whether or not something is a particle or a wave, because most physicists don't think so. Because, you know, causality: Things seem to move from the past to the future to our brains, so even though we know that the future can influence the past in the quantum world, the idea that the future knowledge of a wave as a particle could possibly influence the changing of a wave into a particle is patently absurd, and anyone who posits such an idea is playing bullshit thought games.

 

bullshit name the three sccret titwn mwster - i'll py yuou yiu a mikion olllr

you not worth oroplr epfial

 

who are thehe secret masers


ehhoi[[[[[[[[[

d,[dfooddompdflml


fckyopose fokork


ice




whoin trc

 

Yes. It's already true that the future effects the past on the Quantum level. Why would that aspect be closed off to just Quantum Mechanics?

And completely agree with the observation points.

 

in college peope debated nd were kind - you're shit on a shingle

and you don't know the three secret masters - dick

 

I might say the future affects the past just as much as the past affects the future ... but what do I know. We perceive an arrow of time (entropy) but what is time?

 

Time IS energy IS movement IS all. It's not an illusion, it is everything.

The future is entropic movement that, believe it or not, HAS NOT happened yet.

Quantum teleportation is bullshit. It is an experiment that tests entanglement but actually teleports absolutely nothing.

Entanglement is simply particles known to be in same or mirrored positions.

Particles are not really little bits of anything but complex electromagnetic wave fields with polarities and extended EM fields.

Wave functions appear to collapse at observation because quantum states are impossible to actually observe until they are collided (destroyed) with a sensor.

 

(Particles) ... they are fields, which are waves. All particles are composed of the same fundamental fields, and these fields are waves that can interfere with each other, constructively destructively etc. In certain configurations ... you call that a quark or something, or an electron.

then you have string theory and my mind gets blown.

 

Just because it isn't an illusion doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a dimension of its own that we don't fully experience.

I'll believe it when you prove it. Fact is, photons have been shown to predict the future. Either they're computing variables in order to arrive at the most probable conclusion or the future already exists.

You can't test entanglement without teleporting information from one entangled particle to the other. To say nothing is teleported is to say that quantum entanglement is purely coincidence. Or to say that our experience of distances is an illusion.

And influencing the behavior of one effects the behavior of the other. Quantum physicists aren't just making comparisons between two particles. It isn't like looking at two oranges and saying, "Hey, this orange is orange. AND SO IS THIS ORANGE!!!" and then making the mistake of thinking one orange is causing the other to be orange.

Waves, particles...what's the difference...

They're impossible to observe until they are collided with consciousness. The quantum state becomes one with its recording. Sensors can't technically observe anything. They can only record. It takes a human being to observe, and there is literally no way of extricating this act of observation from the possibility that it influences what it observes.

What does being aware of reality have to do, physically, with reality? If we can't answer the question, then let us at least admit defeat, once and for all. Sure it might bruise our egos a little bit, but we'd manage.

 

You've pointed out some good points here, not so sure about the last one. I suggest reading Barret AB(2014) An integration of Integrated Information Theory with fundamental physics. ... and see what this means to you, or how you interpret that paper.

 

^ That's all nonsense, bad science and assumptions.

"teleportation" in a nutshell:
Particle A is mirrored and sent to two labs to collide with particle B. First lab makes the collision (observation) and notes position or particle C is achieved. Second lab is asked to make same observation, holy shit particle C is observed. Some sensationalist moron who doesn't deserve his degree calls it teleportation!

What is teleported is absolutely nothing. Same as if I said I could teleport chocolate milk. I send two labs identical bottles A and B. First lab collides the ingredients from A and B and observes chocolate milk. second lab collides the two ingredients and gets... holy shit, chocolate milk! The only thing you've verified is that both labs had the same ingredients. The only thing different is that you can actually see the milk and observe that it is milk before combining it with syrup. Thus preventing some buffoon to make some unsubstantiated and untestable claim that the second bottle of milk instantly changed to chocolate milk the instant the first bottle did.

Producing predictable results is not teleportation and it is not "predicting the future" for anything other than what is particularly known or understood to likely happen.