Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of ‘Time’
Some people say that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics can only be explained if it is linked to the consciousness of the observer in the so called “observer effect”.
But this video will put forward the opposite idea that a deeper understanding of the physics of quantum mechanics will give us a greater understanding of how consciousness works.
Because of the subject matter of this video the diagrams and theories are very speculative, but to the best of the authors’ ability this has all been based on the physics and mathematics that we already have.
Only the interpretation has changed in this theory conscious is based on physics, physics is not based on the conscious of the observer.
The quantum wave-particle function that is explained mathematically by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself photon by photon or moment by moment.
Therefore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty that we have with any future event.
Source
Light is still interacting with the particles regardless of whether you observe them or not.
I never understood why it's interpreted the way it usually is in physics today, and not that "photons are interacting with particles used to observe them." Instead it's, "the presence of an observer affects the outcome…" Never made sense to me. Like the obvious is being ignored. Am I missing something??
0:32 In the case where there is only one detector at one slit, the light that goes through the slit without a detector, when tallied at the back wall, also shows the disappearance of the fringe pattern. In this case "nothing" has come into contact with "anything." Also, in cases where the light travels though glass (being absorbed and re-emitted) or reflected off mirrors, with contact, does nothing to collapse the wave function. Ultimately, your assertion that only when the particle comes into contact with something the wave function collapses is demonstratively false. Sorry, but the only thing left is the observer effect (conscious observation/knowledge causes collapse).
Would the universe be like it is now without consiousness?
TRUE. man we need by now pants with 2 slits? I need money for Nobel prize to build m thermodynamic resonant engine your spay is polarizing the atoms. You need more ask me. Heisenberg-yes , dualism-yes but there really is polarization in respect with Heisenberg and dualism. WHEN OBSERVER IS ACTIVE ONE.
Well it's best to not talk about them as if they are real in any case. Or at least understand that they are "virtual" for a reason.
here is what wiki says about virtual particles and their "real" properties.
"As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."
Philosophy doesn't make something "real" or not. IE it is largely open to interpretation.
Again show me the study that shows the virtual particle to exist (ie i can see it), not just the effect that is observed.
Show me the study that observed (with the human eye) a virtual particle.
Gravity isn't a theory. Im not gonna talk to you further if you're going to say things like this.
And these metaphysicists suffer from majory problems that all boil down to what is called bias. Emotional bias and subjective bias makes a person think they can reason about the world. They just assume they can reason about it and therefore that all their "answers" are correct. The answers may fit a model of reality, but that doesn't make it correct.
You explained nothing to me other than your belief in what is happening. Nothing you said has been "proven" with physical evidence.
No you don't know about logic as you dont understand the simple fact that logical != True. Come back when you learn what that means.
LOL you hope to be or your gambling on it. I don't give a shit. At least in 50 years ill be the honest one. If the MV theory proves true, by which i mean we get to actually see evidence of it, not that it fits the mathematical models, then ill say, holy shit its right! The point is you don't know your right. You just, as I said before, hope its true. There are many perspectives that are compatible with quantum models. Not just a multiverse.
Some of it is just indirect measurments that aren't even realistically made. They are modeled. Until they can be measured in real time where we can observe what is actually happening, they are just models of reality.
Your personal conclusion isn't truth. You need to understand that and stop posting youtube truth comments like your the authority.
You aren't in the ballpark lol. You probably just haven't been challenged. Most people leave others alone so they can believe what they want.
I dont know. And neither do you. Of course we may prove more and more as time moves forward, but at the moment you need to leave it at unknown. It's the people that claim fantasy that do more harm than good. Many dont even know they're doing it.
This isn't what nature does lol. You see what you want to see. Nature exists in states, not an infinite potential state. I see that from looking at nature.
WTF does my hypothesis have anything to do with this? I dont fucking pretend to know shit when I don't. You clearly do and need to by the looks of things. Whats wrong? Can't deal with not knowing something? Why do you have to believe in unsubstantiated conjecture?
Yes potentiality. The possible state a thing can have. That my friend isn't at all what energy exists in, in reality. Energy has a potential depending on what state it is in. Infinite potential doesn't even make sense for the ability to do work.
Lol infinite combinations and possbilities? You've been watching too many sci fi movies.
Nope. Sorry. Logic doesn't make things true. Learn about logic first then come back. The multiverse perspective isn't even a theory because it can't be tested.
LOL and you think you understand it? You think science is smart enough to even be able to say that "It is not possible to crack at least". Interesting.
Metaphysics is bullshit. You buy into it because it makes the world sound mystical. You have no idea what you're even saying because you can't understand. Just because something appears to be random, it might just mean its too complex (we may simply not have the intelligence to understand it) for us to get. Higher level beings (if we evolved) might naturally understand it. Potentials are merely ways that we dumb things down.
Indirectly observed? Merely people are watching the effect on other particles then making up their own reasoning due to lack of understanding. Unless something is proven to exist, you can't say th ey exist. It's just a theory.
I am using what i have bro. "Are god?" You mean am i god? No. I just don't pretend to understand the things that we can't possibly test the validity of. Virtual particles are just another thing used to fit a persons world view when evidence is lacking. It's gap based reasoning. We can't know what existed prior to the big bang, sooooo lets say particles were just "virtual". It's just an assumption. It may prove to be right, but its still an assumption.
That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. There is plenty that can be found by empirical evidence, otherwise there would be no such thing as empirical evidence. Cleary there are things we can test and things we can't. Anything we can't test is beyond our ability to know. All we can do is guess and hope our models are correct.
Sherlock Holmes hypothesized. His deductions weren't "gap based" in any manner. And his deductions were proven by empirical evidence.
You can't know prior to the universe because you weren't there. A virtual particle is merely a scientific attempt to extend our understanding by reasoning about something we can't reason about. "POP out of nowhere" is a meaningless phrase that is just more gap based reasoning.
You didn't have to. That is what i meant because that is what is assumed in most of these videos.
Wrong. Some things appear to be random. They may not be random at all. I can show you what appears to be a random choice, but in reality it comes from a highly complex algorithm. Many such encyrption algorithms exist. Psuedo random number generators are patterned, but seemingly random.
Ah I see. So because you can't understand anything else, clearly infinite realities has to be true. A true gap based reasoning.
Science knows nothing except for its assumptions. It sees what is perceived as random then calls the universe random because of its biased understanding.
Richard Dawkins is no expert. The overall net energy of the universe is 0? I'd buy that. But that energy goes through all possibilities is pure meaningless tripe.
LOL you have the english skills of a kid since that comment made no sense to begin with.
Energy will go through all possibilities? You have no proof of this.
We aren't the only universe? Again have evidence of this too?
Energy is nothing? From our perspective it is.
Then you're adding nothing to the conversation, so don't put stupid generalizations in when you don't care to qualify them.
The universe it a paradox? OK. We still only see what we are intelligent enought to see. That is to say the universe is random to us because we can only see randomness. IE things we can't understand so to us they're random possbilities.
Actually it has been. Id have to find the paper that proved it. But basically it showed that the phenomena occurs even w/o a person watching it. The O.E. I was talking about was in reference to this idea that a person can effect the outcome merely by watching it. Not the widely accepted understanding that it is indeed the act of measurment effects the outcome.
Prior? You can't know anything prior to the universe. The point still stands because photon radiation existed after the big bang before humans were ever around to see it.
And as far as time is concerned, yes. It is not real. It is merely a concept that allows us to gauge the passage of order to chaos.
I can now say "Kilroy was here!"
But this is only possible because we have a past, future and a moment of now. Check out my other videos to get a complete picture!
(cont…)
If the big bang occured then what is it that collapsed the waveform back then? No man was around to see anything in order to collapse the waveform. IE it must have been particles that did this. So if that is true, then why would you think particle interaction doesn't "collapse the waveform" themselves?
"it is uncertain because it is all probabilities the nature of existence itself"
That statment is incomplete and makes no sense. Please finish and qualify what you mean by it. Generalizations are for the ignorant. I am not ignorant.
Quantum fluxuations? So you throw out a few terms you don't understand, then that means the observer effect is real? Space foam and the like don't prove anything about things existing only when we look at them. Eyes haven't always existed you know.
LOL you've essentially said nothing at all lol. You could have just said "toast" and i would still have no clue what the hell you saying.
Ill say it again. The mind doesn't control matter. The observer effect, at least interpreted as the mind "making" the particles act or "collapsing the waveform" is purely a myth. Why? Because the earth formed and shifted form long before man existed and long before man EVER had eyes or a brain.
Because we cannot achieve absolute zero everything and everyone is radiating electromagnetic waves continuously therefore this process is universal and continuous. Because this process is universal conscious energy in the form electrical activity in the brain is the most advanced part of this universal process. The continuous flow of ideas and emotions that form consciousness are always in ‘the moment of now’ within their own created ref-frame.
Your computer doesn't interact with 1's and 0's. A computer is a state machine. It merely is influenced electrically by a series of voltage levels and proceeds to output an influenced state. So youll get 001 when you add 000+001. It, from a macro perspective, executes and thinks. The mind measures light intensity. That's all. It doesn't change the state of particles or make them exist when we look at them. The mind doesn't control matter.
Because the nature of the light photon is random or statistical and part of an interactive process. The wave-particle duality of light is like the digits 1 and 0 of a computer your computer interacts with the 1 and zeros and computes information. We do the same with the w-particle duality of light this is a universal process because everything is radiating light continuously. The mind is the most advanced part of this universal process and can measure it as the flow of time.
Yes but why is it uncertian? Because its nature is random? Or because we simply lack the intelligence to understand what is really going on. Certian people seem to want to believe that because its uncertian, then clearly the mind is what makes it certian. That is simply false.
Experiments in quantum physics are always uncertain because of the wave-particle duality of light. How the experiment is set up will determine the nature of the light. In this theory light is a wave over a period of time and a particle in the ‘moment of now’ (photon electron coupling) and this process form the flow of time itself.
the observer effect has been debunked. Ill have to look for the experiment that showed how measurement of phenomena doesnt effect the outcome (at least not from the mind). Experiments show that its more the type of measurment and the type of interaction that one takes with an experiment that effects the outcome. In no way does the mind have anything to do with the patterns shown in the double slit experiment.
@symbian7 Thanks for the comment! I have not read this book, but the problem with linking the paradoxes of quantum mechanics with consciousness is that we have no understanding of what consciousness is or how it works. What is consciousness?
I would be interested to see the producer of these excellent videos have a debate with the authors of "The Quantum Enigma" Which argues that every Quantum interpretation encounters consciousness. The book which is based on a university course has reviews by Nobel prize winning physicists in praise of it.
@HLecterPHD In this theory the presence of a mechanical measuring device cause the same change to the result as a person. Light waves will collapse in to new photon oscillations when they come in contact with any object not just the human eye or hand.
@aguirrmar It is true it is not just observation in this theory it is physical action that collapses the waves of light into new photons. The light waves have to come in contact with our eyes for us to see. But the light waves will collapse when it comes in physical contact with any object. We see and feel this continuous process as the flow of time!