jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (124 posts)

Quantum Physics Fault?

  1. TruthDebater profile image52
    TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago

    The common idea in common physics is that reality is not there until we observe it there. Everything is in a superposition until observed and the waves collapse to make the object observational.

    My question is: We are made of cells, say that the cells created us by their conscious observation. Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them? How can cells make a human in a superposition without observing and collapsing wave function?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think the suggestion is that observation can, in some cases, affect a system.  Not that observation creates all of reality.

      1. TruthDebater profile image52
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks. Many of the quantum physicists agree that it applies to the macro/large as well as the small, so they are saying this applies to everything/all cases.

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Name one.

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner "Quantum Enigma"

            1. psycheskinner profile image82
              psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              This book is more properly metaphysics than physics, but I guess it is a valid example.

              1. TruthDebater profile image52
                TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Thank You. They cover all sides from a scientific perspective. I think they did pretty good.

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image75
        ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It is saying that observation determines the kind of experience of reality. Say our eyes. Our eyes see only what is relevant to our survival. But there are many different wavelengths of light that are visible to other creatures, but not to us. So darkness is relative to the optic facility as well as light.

        Shibuya at night will be extremely dark when compared to darkest sunspots. But compared to a highway Tennessee, Shibuya is daytime.

        As for cells, we see it as cells because we are looking at the gradient of light that sees cells. but from another method of observation, they actually look like the stars in space. So which reality is real. The one our eyes see? Or the one that the computer saw? They are both real, but the method of observations are different.

        Quantum Physics just shows you that reality is larger than what the senses can fathom.

        Case in point:

        http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_ … crets.html

    2. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      pls produce your proof of this comment: "Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them?"

      1. TruthDebater profile image52
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Quantum physics says that observation creates the objective. Science doesn't recognize cells as conscious, but without consciousness, how could the cells have observed and created the objective and humans? Without observation, wouldn't the cells have remained in a superposition? Our observation didn't make the cells become reality, their observation made our reality. I was asking a question above more than making a statement. I am just seeing a problem in quantum physics where consciousness is broken down to the smallest level, yet cells aren't recognized as conscious life. Does this make sense? Thanks

        1. qwark profile image58
          qwarkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Truth:
          That wasn't the question.
          The question is: " "Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them?"
          Of course cells existed b4 we observed them. If they didn't we wouldn't be here.
          Truth, if by "conscious" you mean mentally aware, it's obvious cells have no "mind," so they can't be mentally aware.
          If you mean cells are "aware" they absolutely are. They adapt to their environments thru the processes of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Response.) They can mutate to survive.
          Micro evolution of this kind has been empirically proved.

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Where is your mind? Where does it come from? Have you ever seen your mind? If you have never seen your mind, how do you know cells don't have a mind? Wouldn't it take a mind for a cell to communicate? A person can be aware and conscious without being able to communicate, to communicate, they need a healthy mind. How is it obvious cells have no mind when mind is something you can't see?
            Nothing has been empirically proved, there is only stronger evidence for some things than others. How do we know that cells were there before we observed them without being able to observe them? Were they cells before we observed them or were they in a superposition? Thanks.

            1. qwark profile image58
              qwarkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Truth:
              Respectfully if you were truly a student and interested, there'd be no reason for you to ask this question.
              I won't respond further.
              pls, respectfully, go study.   :-)

              1. TruthDebater profile image52
                TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I asked a lot of them, which one are you referring to? I figured you wouldn't like the question of defining mind, this is why people usually have an explanation in store before using words they can't define. thanks.

                1. qwark profile image58
                  qwarkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Truth:
                  your question is so basic and the answer known by so many that is difficult for me to understand why you don't have the answer.
                  Yes I know the answer but I am not into didactics this afternoon.
                  I leave it up to you to do the study and experience the resulting epiphany.
                  Good luck...:-)

                  1. TruthDebater profile image52
                    TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    What is the answer? I find it hard to believe you can define mind when so many others can't. Make me a believer! Which is the basic question I should understand? I see you teaching plenty of others on the forums, I would like to be taught as well. thanks

    3. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      TD, the quantified application is strictly from the optic view.
      Light/energy has three parameter bases times itself, three times 3(3³), which includes the wave and ray. So, the cells -to the optic were not because there was no reflection/observation or optic bend of light fragments...

      1. TruthDebater profile image52
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        So because we couldn't see the cells under the microscope, they didn't exist yet? Thanks

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          well to them, the cells didn't because they require observation as application only. wink

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Them who? What do you mean the cells require observation as application only? thanks

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image75
          ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          the thing is, if the method of observation was the way we observe  cells now they would be cells. But if they were viewed as the light they emanate and we never discovered their physical qualities, then those won't be cells but energy patterns at a microscopic level. The method of observation determines how it looks and therefore what it is. It s what kind light is shed on what is being observed. reality is highly dependent to the method of observation.

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So on the smallest level, the cell isn't there until it's observed or until the cell observes? thanks

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
              ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              its there but it will not be observed as a cell. It will be observed as something else.

              the optics determine their manifestation. is it wave or particle? But it could be either depending on the method of observation.

              So the things we see as light right now, like for instance, the sun what if we have the capacity to see something brighter than that, what would it be? Would it look like a giant cell?

              questions like that tend to come up with quantum physics.

              1. TruthDebater profile image52
                TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                What I am getting at is, when does life go from a superposition to one conscious host? When the host is observed or when the host observes?

                1. profile image0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  The observer and observed are the same instance from a varying degree of bent or optic parameter. The host is both.

          2. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            exactly. The method of observation -in this case microscopic or nanoscopic- is a limited exploration or measure to view the object. reality = energy x necessity -from a human objective view.

            1. TruthDebater profile image52
              TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The subjective creates the objective. I think subjective creates all objective reality. What is the bent or optic parameter that proves both being observed and observing creates a conscious host? thanks

    4. Origin profile image61
      Originposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      An analogy would be.. if a tree falls a thousand miles from you, does it make a sound? big_smile

      1. TruthDebater profile image52
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        According to quantum physics, the tree doesn't fall or make an impact unless it is observed. According to Einstein, the tree would still make a sound by measuring the sound waves, but measuring is observation. I don't know. thanks

        1. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Here, you want to know about QP go here and study:

          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I would rather read a book than the website. If you understand QP, surely you would add more knowledge than you already have. thanks

            1. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              This is all I know about QP:



              http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3R6y9Z5zznI/SuTqzc11LgI/AAAAAAAAAB8/mz4ZPM4d5AQ/lim.jpg

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image75
              ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              are you marine in disguise?

    5. profile image0
      Audacious Shelleyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Everything is in a superposition until observed and the waves collapse to make the object observational."

      Number 1, I had never heard that Quantum Physics had placed that idea out there, and if it did, then it had to have been before the discovery that we are living in a multi-dimensional universe.

      Number 2, ideas, imagination, logic, and reason all exist within a dimension not easily observed except with the mind's eye.  Before the first equation was written, did numbers exist?  The answer is yes.  The numbers already existed before they were written in a 2-dimensional form.  Quantification existed before anyone (except God) knew that it existed.  Our minds have the ability to pull existing objects out of a dimension that is invisible and to bring it into a visible dimension.

    6. profile image47
      fallenangel666posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Cells like the genes they create are not conscious and are insular in their selfisheness, most biologists have abandoned the 'selfish gene' idea, You are confused in your assertion that the paradigm of physics has anything to do with our biological condition, physicists abandoned mechanical models in order to observe the quantum world, biologists should do the same as warranted by Augros and Staccui. If any scientists are open minded to the possibilities of our existence it is physicists, even mathematicicians. You are confusing cells with atoms and needlessly maligning physicists. This is a good example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous.

  2. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 7 years ago

    Quantum Physics does not say this at all, TruthDeabater does.

    1. TruthDebater profile image52
      TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What part am I wrong on? Thanks

  3. TruthDebater profile image52
    TruthDebaterposted 7 years ago

    What do you think?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      We think you need to study physics more.

      1. TruthDebater profile image52
        TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You are telling me to study when you don't think the micro applies to the macro? Seriously?

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Seriously.

          1. TruthDebater profile image52
            TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So what creates reality and the objective? Why is the micro disturbed by observation and the macro isn't in your opinion?

            1. psycheskinner profile image82
              psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Because the very laws of physical work differently in these domains.

              1. TruthDebater profile image52
                TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                How so?

                1. alternate poet profile image67
                  alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You so clearly do not know what you are talking about that I guess you will be a religious troll then ?

                  1. TruthDebater profile image52
                    TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    What do you mean, you are the ones acting religious. What part don't I know what i'm talking about? thanks

                2. psycheskinner profile image82
                  psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  For a start I can to be in only one place at a time.  Thus obsersational uncertain it provided with nothing to collapse.

                  1. TruthDebater profile image52
                    TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You can only be in one place at a time because you are consciously always observing. I think by always observing, you cause the collapse keeping you from being in two places at once. Maybe in death, we return to a superposition where we are in many places at once. What do you mean "thus observational uncertain it provided with nothing to collapse"? thanks

  4. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 7 years ago

    Do some research on Quantum Physics and then re-evaluate your post.

    1. TruthDebater profile image52
      TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You didn't list what part you believe I am wrong about. Thanks

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        All of it.

      2. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        p.s. you haven't named a single physicist who would support your assertion yet?

        1. TruthDebater profile image52
          TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You sure?

          1. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            At the time I wrote it, yes.  Sure and correct.  But of we are not accepting linear time as an assumption of this conversation I don't see how this is going to work.

            1. TruthDebater profile image52
              TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You sure? I wrote my response 24 minutes ago, you wrote yours 21 minutes ago, this means that I answered before you wrote the comment. thanks.

  5. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 7 years ago

    Why does he have to be a "religious troll"?  What does that have to do with anything.  I'm a Christian and I don't agree with what he stated.

  6. luvpassion profile image62
    luvpassionposted 7 years ago

    I think David Bohm provides a clear account of how this incorrect 'particle' conception of matter or wave. The not real until observed not only causes harm to the Sciences, but also to the way we think and live, and thus to our very society and its future evolution.

    The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.
    (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

    1. TruthDebater profile image52
      TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In science, should it be theory that causes happy thoughts or theory that doesn't conform to things based on emotions? If it was based only on happy thoughts, it wouldn't be true.
      I am confused, quantum theory says we are all connected, Bohm says we are all connected, I think we are all connected. If Bohm agrees with quantum theory, why does he disagree with the part of quantum theory that says nothing exists until observation? Thanks.

  7. watchya profile image59
    watchyaposted 7 years ago

    No it doesn't

    1. TruthDebater profile image52
      TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Does it say we are all separate? Thanks

      1. watchya profile image59
        watchyaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You asked if QPh makes sense. I replied to you.

        Does it say we're all separate?
        I don't think so.
        what do you think ?

        1. TruthDebater profile image52
          TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Quantum entaglement

          1. watchya profile image59
            watchyaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            lol lol lol

            That's what Quantum is about big_smile

            1. TruthDebater profile image52
              TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Entanglement is that we are connected, not separate. So quantum theory is saying we are all connected. I might be wrong, but I think i'm right. Thanks

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
                ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                no. but you can think that from studying it. quantum physics just explains the very different rules of particles to the things we see in classical physics

                1. TruthDebater profile image52
                  TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Quantum entanglement is part of quantum theory. It may not make absolute claims, but it does make strong suggestions. What is the main difference in quantum physics and classical physics? Thanks.

                  1. watchya profile image59
                    watchyaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    BP : Before Planck ,Classical
                    AP : After Planck, Quantum

                  2. profile image57
                    (Q)posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Classical physics looks at the Macro world, the world that we observe all around us and those effects we can measure. Quantum field theory takes us into the Micro world, where the events of the Macro world are broken down into their smallest parts; atoms, molecules, quarks, etc.

  8. LeanMan profile image87
    LeanManposted 7 years ago

    eeeerrrrr.... I think that's all i need to add...

  9. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Ceci, it could be all three, yet only one being focused on.
    The manifest is the optic of the united ray-wave sequence, from one of the many optic parameters.

    muon intersect hedron displays meson, etc etc.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      True, true.  the manifestation is a consequence of observation. so outside of observation nothing exists...meaning NOT DEFINABLE. as I have often described zero to be.

  10. Origin profile image61
    Originposted 7 years ago

    This also reminds me of...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat



    ps. I don't condone killing cats, just saying! big_smile

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      how do you make that box? I can't ever make it.

  11. ceciliabeltran profile image75
    ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago

    and the thread is dead.

  12. ceciliabeltran profile image75
    ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago

    ehem

  13. Susana S profile image97
    Susana Sposted 7 years ago

    That's a great theory and a great question. I think you're probably right. Let's hope the scientists get a move on in understanding dark matter, so they can tell us what it is.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Here's something I found:

      expressed by a co-inventor of super-string theory, Michael Greene:

      "In the theory of gravity, you can't really separate the structure of space and time from the particles which are associated with the force of gravity [ such as gravitons]. The notion of a string is inseparable from the space and time in which it moves.".

  14. ceciliabeltran profile image75
    ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago

    Nobel lauriat Steven Weinberg:

    "Space and time coordinates are just four out of many degrees of freedom we need, to specify a self-consistent theory. What we are going to have [in any future Theory of Everything] is not so much a new view of space and time, but a de-emphasis of space and time",

  15. ceciliabeltran profile image75
    ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago

    and to validate truth debater's preoccupation on gravity as the key to understanding everything:

    direct quote from Einstein:

    "Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field".

    1. TruthDebater profile image52
      TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Cecilia, I took a chance when I wrote it knowing little about gravity. But I do know it's not coincidence that the greatest mind in our history is the greatest and most well known for a good reason, he picked the most important subject to understanding what governs and what we are most dependent on for life. It is also shown that the universe must attract or repel in order to maintain a balance, order, and design.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image75
        ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you too I learned so much from your questions! I was just telling my husband intelligence is not found in the answers but in the questions asked.

        1. TruthDebater profile image52
          TruthDebaterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Likewise Cecilia, Thank You.

  16. ceciliabeltran profile image75
    ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago

    From the left field, Joseph Campbell has a book titled:

    THE INNER REACHES OF OUTER SPACE, detailing that outer space is just a manifestation of our inner consciousness.

    when we gaze out into the cosmos, do we gaze at our own minds?
    when reason falls short, imagination kicks in.

 
working