It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:55 pm


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:41 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: 55° 57'N: 03° 08'W
No I didn't not leave out any comma. One is not required when
indicating to whom the word "sorry" is directed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5285
Location: Lancashire
Oh. :D

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6506
Location: Manchester
Dear al(L)
I find the idea that particles (or replications of particles) can be in more than one place at once quite mind boggling.
However, the idea that not just one particle that makes up me but every single particle that makes up me (or replications of my particles) can not only be in a different place but all lined up in another same place together again replicating me - I find dii=fficult to accept.
Still I suppose one MP can live in six houses at once - politics is a quantum world.
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5285
Location: Lancashire
It's possible that a new interpretation of particle behaviour might show that particle-wave duality doesn't occur, and that the observed effects are due to something more down-to-earth, but this is mere guesswork.
As you point out, Cliff, quantum politics is much more comprehensible. It seems that Berlusconi can occupy multiple beds at the same time.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
brian livesey wrote:
One of the physicists in the programme held the position that, because a particle can be in two places at the same time, this means that there are many replicates of himself in parallel universes.
I'm no expert, but I detect a flaw in this way of thinking. The physicist assumed that, because particles can be in one place and another simultaneously, as demonstrated in the celebrated slit experiment and in particle acccelerators, this must always be the case.
It overlooks the fact that when we change the conditions we get different results. There's no reason to think that because a particle acts in a certain way in certain conditions, that it will act the same way in all conditions, including when it is part of the human body. In this instance, the particle is neither being shot from a laser, nor being accelerated.
Has anyone else any thoughts on this?

The double slit experiment implies that particles react in different ways depending on the way and the timing in which they are observed.
It almost suggests that they may not exist at all until observed by a life form.
This statement has alsorts of implications in the way we understand life, what life means and the relationship between life and the Universe.
The ultimate implication which can be formed from such experiments is that the Universe exists individually for each and everyone of us and in no way collectively.
In other words Brian, if you die tomorrow (God forbid) then because the Universe doesn't exist for you individually then does it exist at all?
It also raises questions like 'does the Universe know that it will create life for Electrons and Protons to react to'?
If there are no witnesses, does the Universe exist? Can it exist?
The double slit experiment implies this in some ways.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5285
Location: Lancashire
You might be slipping into solipsism. The Universe must exist independently of us, otherwise how do you explain the facts of evolution?

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
brian livesey wrote:
You might be slipping into solipsism. The Universe must exist independently of us, otherwise how do you explain the facts of evolution?

We witness the Universe on an individual basis through our own individual reality tunnel. If I look at a star then turn my back on it then for all I know the star doesn't exist till I look at it again. Because you are looking at it and witnessing it yourself, this has no bearing on my experience of the Universe.
When I stopped looking, the Photons intended for my eyes don't exist anymore. We must witness the Universe individually for it to exist.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Posts: 496
Location: UK
Quasar wrote:
When I stopped looking, the Photons intended for my eyes don't exist anymore.


I had never appreciated that photons were emitted with an intended destination. I had always thought that a photon was just emitted and travelled in a direction. Our Universe must be truly amazing if each photon has an intended destination (e.g. your eye).

And then when you think that a photon emitted from e.g. the Andromeda Galaxy destined for my eye was actually emitted many years before I was born - so the Andromeda Galaxy must have known about both my birth and where I would be (and looking) at the appropriate moment. Smart.

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5285
Location: Lancashire
You said that we must see the Universe individually for it to exist. But do we? I've already pointed out the facts of evolution; we know from the data that our planet existed before "mind" evolved.
You now appear to be saying that the Universe is a creation of the collective mind of humanity ( known as Intersubjective Idealism ), but again I draw your attention to the facts of evolution.
Of course, it could be argued that the facts of evolution are also creations of the human mind, but this raises its own problems. If mind only knows itself ( the Universe being a mental creation ), how could it conceive of a time when there was no mind? And for what purpose?
We know from the facts of evolution that our planet existed for many millions of years before biota and mental processes emerged.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:43 pm
Posts: 505
Location: Ulverston, Cumbria
Quote:
If I look at a star then turn my back on it then for all I know the star doesn't exist till I look at it again.


If it was our own Sun, you would still be able to sense the infrared radiation (and indeed, see the light around you), which would imply that it is still there :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Posts: 496
Location: UK
Mogget wrote:
Quote:
If I look at a star then turn my back on it then for all I know the star doesn't exist till I look at it again.


If it was our own Sun, you would still be able to sense the infrared radiation (and indeed, see the light around you), which would imply that it is still there :wink:


Or you could ask a friend to look for you. But make sure it is somebody you trust otherwise, look away, it ceases to exist and then you discover your best mate has been lying when he told you it was still there whilst the Earth has turned into an ice-ball.

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5302
Or your best friend could elope with a lovely photon that fate had meant to be yours.

David.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Posts: 496
Location: UK
David Frydman wrote:
Or your best friend could elope with a lovely photon that fate had meant to be yours.

David.


That would just be unfair - taking other people's photons is not something your best friend should do to you

The bigger risk is that, if a photon destined for you was taken by somebody else, would you cease to exist ?

Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:44 pm
Posts: 172
brian livesey wrote:

It almost suggests that they may not exist at all until observed by a life form.

If there are no witnesses, does the Universe exist? Can it exist?


This oft quoted question is an extension (too far) of the question as to whether something such as a photon or an electron has a position until we "observe" it but putting something (such as our eyes) in its path.

Unfortunately the word "observe" in this question tends to get interpreted as "consciously observed by a life form", hence leading to the question as to whether the Universe existed before the first life form "observed" it.

However the "observation" can be something much more basic such as colliding with an asteroid, a dust particle or an atom. All of these cause the photon or electron to become sufficiently "localised" such that a collision occurs or it doesn't.

In a large object such as the Sun, there are vast numbers of photons/electrons/nuclei constantly interacting with each other, so the location of the Sun is very well defined ... so you can be confident that the Sun is still there after you look away from it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
If Photons weren't meant for your eyes then we have a huge problem. The whole Universe would be a mass of unrecognisable chaotic Photons.
Look at this picture.
Image
Photons meant to be observed by you individually would pass by where you once were and hit someone else's eyes inverted. Can anyone tell me why, out of all the Photon's fired by an object, your eyes only pick up the ones necessary to define its distance from you?
The Photon field of the sun for example is as wide as the sun from a certain direction yet our eyes ignore masses of Photons and only choose to make use of the ones it needs. Why do you eyes not see the sun as if it were 2 feet from your face?
Unless of course its our brain that is defining the distances and not our eyes!!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group