The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality  (Read 4233 times)

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« on: 23/11/2014 22:13:06 »
A man steps from behind the door of a sun-dried hut. His clothes are white: two sheets of cloth, partly covering an out-thrust chest. In the distance, a group of tall figures stand in twos and threes. The man's eyes narrow. There are around fifteen to twenty, each wearing a white coat, their faces masked with clip-boards. Sunlight streams onto the barren landscape. The primitive fellow retreats, then re-emerges with an army of men, women and children. This is Greece. The year 345. The pen-wielding invaders make a few quick-steps as they eye parts of the settlement. One may be forgiven to think that these are some other-worldly beings. But no. These are humans. Time-travellers.
The above is an example of what may be achieved in a few short decades. With evolutions in computing and other technology, we can clone time, teleport particles and send men into space. Reality, it seems, has shifted from the cave and into the once-perceived realms of science-fiction. Back, for the moment, to the year 345. A lot of people have abandoned their huts, headed over the field with sacks, jugs and food. Those who remain think this is a spiritual encounter. 'A sign', they say. 'From God!' For almost three centuries, Isaac Newton dominated the world of physics. It seemed we had almost an explanation for everything. From gravity to thermodynamics. From the heavens, to the sea! But at the turn of the twentieth century something strange was happening. Not unlike our story of the early Greeks and time-travellers, this something had opened the eyes of each physicist into a new way of reality. Quantum theory. There's magic in the world of science. Particles can travel the universe in an instant. Empty space is not empty. In the words of Niels Bohr, 'Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics, cannot possibly have understood it.' It is the study of discrete energies and it's those energies that underpin all our knowledge of nature. I-pads, cell-phones and laptops. These are just a small range of technological advances made in recent times. However, there is an underlying force in these achievements. One that cannot so easily be observed. The human brain is the most advanced tool of all creations. We can do things today, that yesterday we could never have dreamt.


 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #1 on: 23/11/2014 22:22:37 »
Physical Reality and the Mind
 
There is perhaps more than a little difficulty encountered by those wishing to relate workings of the mind to quantum processes. However, the first notion to discard is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has been swallowed by a lot of mystic nonsense. What we will be attempting to address in this part, is how sense perception governs the whole of reality. Also, what reality must entail, in order we can assign such a status. There are many hypothesis concerning quantum theory that will claim: The problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with perception. However, I am of the belief that a problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with experimental boundaries. Of course, there is no difference between the two; the only difficulties are created when desired results do not conform to expectations.
 
In order to relate an observable in quantum mechanics to the inner working of the consciousness, first one must hold certain quantum mechanical concepts. Mainly, that an observation made in such a case is so closely tied to perception that the two are inseperable. This concept is not only true, but recommended. There are reasons for this. First, that one may get to observe first-hand, the true workings of nature; second, the realization that nature is dependent entirely upon experimental boundaries. It is fruitful to try to define whether quantum mechanics has more do with reality or mind. Each representation in quantum mechanics is used as a mnemonic. The whole thing is a mathematical system, used for the prediction of quantum behaviours - which at first glance, seems to have no bearing whatever upon the physical world. We want to explore the argument of reality versus perception. And, how the study of quantum mechanics may accurately define that reality. How may one express, for instance, the reality in which our ancestors lived? since their representation of physical systems was not so detailed as our own. What about the future? i.e., if we can imagine a time when quantum mechanics falls short of new representations for systems, then how can we put fourth the statement that the whole of reality is all to do with how we perceive it? In answer to the last question, the problem would be resolved if each new breakthrough in the representation for systems was done in the name of quantum mechanics. Actually, only if one changed the name would this create inconsistencies. In order that one know he/she is in the right business, he/she must be prepared for a change in representations, as a change in the evolution of perception. Quantum mechanics, in order to accurately describe systems - and as we shall learn, is not about packing up as the result of too many conflicting ideas, but on principle, contain an in-depth study of psychological evolution. Best evidence suggests that people with larger intellectual capacity will proceed us. Therefore, it would be nonsense to embark upon a study that did not embrace all forms of reality.
 
For someone picking up a book on quantum mechanics for the first time, it may be difficult to see how a quantum observation bears any relation to reality at all, let alone perception. Yet with a little persistence, a little knowledge of chemical bonding, one may distance oneself from the compelling desire to picture quantum processes as occuring in the same way as classical events; instead, learns more about the way in which matter is composed. One also learns how one may observe all of this; from nuclear fusion, to rays of light from the sun. But the means by which awareness of relations between micro and macrocosms is not merely to do with matter, nor of the fundamental properties of matter. These means also, are not merely to do with light rays. For how we perceive quantum phenomenae - and gain an awareness of relations from that phenomenae into classical realms, is all to do with experimental boundaries.
What do we mean when we say that perception and reality are the same? For one can easily imagine that a discovery in quantum realms does not entail an abrupt change in the physical environment. But why do we think this? As we learn more about the physical environment through the aid of such studies, we have a tendency to change surroundings as a result of compiled data. Nowadays, these surroundings are mainly what one would call man-made. For instance, we no longer make buildings from asbestos - because of health risk. We no longer use coal-powered trains as a form of travel, in order to reduce pollutants in the atmosphere. Of course there are more examples such as this. Examples where the concept of a physical environment has changed because of a deeper knowledge of micro and macro relations.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #2 on: 23/11/2014 22:29:36 »
Evolution of Mind vs Evolution of the Physical Environment
 
Is not the study of anything, fundamentally involved with atoms? Is not the study of evolution - along with other subjects embraced in the deeper sense of statistics? Charles Darwin’s theory,“Origin of Species”, highlighted – above many things, the connection between biology and geographical science. Before then, the origin of man was not thought to have evolved from billions of years in the Earth’s waters, but to have emerged by the hands of God. Science has come a long way since. Quantum mechanics has opened our eyes to the fact that parts which make up our world each share the same principle. These days, the psychological aspect is so thoroughly probed that everything can be linked to the mind. Wilhelm Wein, in 1893, discovered anomalies between the temperature of a black-body and its wavelength and consequent breakthroughs in electrodynamics led Albert Einstein to publish his theory of relativity. Then, as with the advent of religion, it seemed our questions of reality had been answered. Throughout the existence of man, such quests have been fuelled and overwhelmed by imagination. 'I think therefore I am', said Rene Decartes. He was right.
 
What defines reality? Is it those mechanisms that make up perception - including that which happens when we close our eyes, or is it the psychological state of a person? First, we know that discoveries in neurobiology have become an important aspect in medicinal research. Second, that without a psychological state, there would be no perception, no reality. But the first question is loaded, for it requires a subject to know about mechanisms of the mind, whereas psychological states occur whether or not one has knowledge of such mechanisms. Human perception is made up partly by information - consequent to our position on Earth; partly by other contributing factors. Also, this perception entails our own views, mirrored by the sense that we know what others think However arbitrary the truth behind that last statement, it's one we can take for granted because of human behaviour.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #3 on: 23/11/2014 22:37:44 »
Reality: the tenses

When we think of reality, we immediately think of the present physical tense.  But reality, if it is to be an analogy of the whole, must possess events and/or approximations relating to past and present.  Otherwise, questions arise as to how we got here, where we are headed and so fourth.  The way in which nature holds on to past and future events is not clear.  But if we consider the whole of reality as being without the reality of ancestors, or future inhabitants of earth, then it seems we would miss out on a large chunk of data.  In order to investigate reality as a whole, first we need to discuss in sections, the concept of individual time frames.  We begin this section by focusing on past and future events and a good approximation of such can be found in works of the early philosophers.  Also, I have chosen the early philosophers for discussion, because although ttheir mathematic methods are not what one would call scientific, the evolution of the proto-scientific era to the emergization of quantum theory is none the less relavent and in keeping with the purpose of this book.
In defining what-is, the consciousness must hi-jack certain plurals as one will find by taking an historical-ontological view of perceptions. For instance, early philosophers devised theories of reality with principles confined to the earth, such as the sun and moon being a product of exhalation from the sea. This conclusion had been met by the observation that everything around us is either hot, cold, wet and dry. Each scientific breakthrough involves some separation of a whole, previously thought of as fact. It cannot be questioned whether these early thinkers took theories such as this to be the truth, that is a theory that could not be expanded on, although there is a possibility that this was so because theorists at the time did not have means of hi-tech experiments. Our perception of reality has been as much the subject of evolution as has our physical bodies. “But now hear the account that
follows of how the shoots of the wretched human race, men and women, were raised by night, By fire as it separated. The tale is true and informative.
First there arose whole-natured shapes With a portion of both water and heat, Their arising forced by the urge of fire to reach its kin. Not yet did they
display bodies fair with limbs, nor voices, nor again the human characteristic of speech.” Simplicius.   When one thinks of what-is and where it came from, we may have a tendency to believe that what is now, arose from that which is not. “Now only one tale remains Indicating that what-is is unborn and imperishable, Entire, alone of its kind, unshaken and complete. It was not once nor will it be, since it is now, altogether, Single and continuous. For what birth could you seek for it? How and from what did it grow? Neither will I allow you to say Or think that it grew from what-is-not. For that it is not Cannot be spoken or thought. Also, what need could have impelled it To arise later or sooner, if it sprang from an origin in nothing? And so it should either entirely be, or not be at all. Nor ever will the power of trust allow that from what-is It becomes something other than itself. That is why justice has not freed it, Relaxing the grip of her fetters either to be born or perish; no, she holds it fast. The decision on these matters depends on this: It is or is not. And it has been decided, as was necessary, To leave the one way un-thought and nameless, as no real way, And that the other truly is a way and is truth-bearing. And how could what-is be hereafter? How could it have been? If it came to be, is it not, and likewise if it will be sometime in the future?  Thus birth has been extinguished and perishing made inconceivable.  Nor can it be divided, since all alike it is.  Nor is there More of it here and an inferior amount of it elsewhere, Which would restrain it from cohering, but it is all full of what-is.  Now, changeless within the limits of great bonds, It is without beginning and without end, since birth and perishing Have been driven far off, and true trust has cast them away.  It stays in the same state and in the same place, lying by itself, And so it stays firmly as it is, for mighty Necessity Holds it in the bonds of a limit which restrains it all about Because it is not lawful for what-is to be incomplete.”  Parmenides.   The viability of human language to describe reality is somewhat precarious, but the evolution of thought and therefore the rearrangement of words to describe experience cannot be brought together without the revolutionary asking questions – the same as our predecessors… what is reality? One cannot expect to devise a perceptual truth from anything that is shown or written, one can only attempt to guide a person to some way of thinking. For instance, a reader reading the statement that reality is everything that is and is not anything that is not, does not impress upon anybody an actual summarization of being, nor of not being – only a tiny aspect of being through the experience of having read the statement.  Everything we perceive as fact consists of some unknown set of terms and the best one can hope for is a complementary- isolation of concepts – as was to be proved with the Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty principle and Wave-particle duality.  “The phenomenon under observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus, which eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help fix the effects in our consciousness.” Albert Einstein. The notion of a universal system as having to do with a process of exhalation from the earth could have only came about through some amount of data available to our senses. But it is impossible to go round observing all that can be known as what one would call perceptual reality. However, it’s clear that the more we think we know is expressed into a greater concept of the whole. By use of a thought-experiment containing immortal and mortal subjects, it’s possible to conclude that our emotions exist as the incomplete ability to receive information. The less we think we know about some pre-conceived whole, the more we believe we know ourselves.
Since the turn of the twentieth century, the study of quantum mechanics has not merely underpineed all our knowledge of nature, it has underpinned the scientific and mathematical breakthroughs which ultimately led to its existence.  Because of this underpinning, we may be accidentally drawn to the conclusion that our immediate environment has severed all correspondence to that of our cave-dwelling ancestors.  But where the conceptual framework fails - and therefore, in many cases, the ties between a physical past and present, careful consideration must be given to the preceeding efforts which led to the radical transformation of such framework.  Quantum mechanics is about using the accumulation of knowledge of various subjects, combined with the instinct that, however fallible any theoretical work may appear in contrast to any other, each bit of data is useful in the way that it may be used - simulataneously, to build on an infinitely new set of ideas.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #4 on: 23/11/2014 22:42:19 »
The aim of every new subject - and similarly, every new concept is to sift through the old ideas in order to broaden the use of language, that we might better understand the world. The study of philosophy comes before each of our intellectual endeavours. This perhaps leads to the notion that a further precision of human activity - which includes that which the mind perceives, can not only be represented by words, but our actions and the objects surrounding those can become the words themselves. Since before the age of Aristotle, evolution of thought has shown us that the accuracy of language concerning human activity is only in agreement with parameters so far as that which is perceived as rational, or that which sets precedent for human excellence. This analogy of a world - represented by words, as anything which the mind perceives may, highlights the phenomenon of the prediction of averages in quantum mechanics; for a definition of
such systems may either be an external or internal process, but not both.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #5 on: 23/11/2014 22:44:44 »
Evolution and the Science of Perception.

To live any life at all takes some degree of perception. Perhaps it’s our environment that has – so far, given us a mortal perspective. Then again, perhaps it’s our mortal perspective that limits the amount of time in that environment. Either way, the fact remains that without a ‘view’, it would be as though we had never lived at all. The way in which we perceive our world is all to do with the information that we gain through senses. A brain – without the use of vision, sound etc, would not allow us to function in the way we do. There are two ways in which one might define reality: one is that a perceived external world is at one with the inner-world. And two, that those external and inner worlds are separate. Whichever way one prefers, the mind, and in the case of the duality between inner and outer realms, the external environment, is composed to be inherent with emotion. For instance, a person watching their favourite TV program will usually feel content in such a situation because it's something they enjoy. However, a person watching their favourite TV program while in a room filled with distraction is more likely to feel frustrated. So, reality may present itself to us in many ways. And we may only interpret that reality with feelings, like those mentioned; and which are either negative or positive, i.e., happiness or sadness; excitement or depair. But on the whole, humans use these feelings as a method for survival. For instance, if we were to come across a plant which looked or smelled unpleasant, then we would be unlikely to eat it, thus avoiding a potentially fatal encounter. However, this method is not very useful if we want to find out why the plant looked or smelled the way it did. So emotion plays a major role in perception. But the early Greeks knew this much. In fact, their appearance here makes for a useful addition, because their mode of questioning is used to define things of existence to this day. Questions like how, why, when and where? The early Greeks saw the mind pretty much as I have expressed, as though it is a sort of chariot for reality. 'Nothing occurs at random, but everything happens for a reason and because it has to.' Leucippus. But although one can say that ontologically we are a product of the senses, it's not at present clear that our knowledge of the world is down to the same thing. Our senses enable us to survive on this planet. In our primitive days this was through hunting and gathering; but in modern times we survive mainly through technology. Some questions arise here as to how modern intelligence has emerged from that first cave and into the twenty-first century. There is only so much we can put down to survivng proto-scientific works. People live and die; and when they die, so the mathematical and scientific knowledge dies too. Early humans had eyes and ears etc, but they did not have the mathematical forethought of Pythagoras, any more than Newton had of quantum mechanics. Such understanding, without a radical adaptation of the senses, could not have been acquired without some of our predessessors' knowledge having been imparted to us genetically. In truth, we may never have survived the proto-scientific era.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #6 on: 23/11/2014 22:47:06 »
There is some evidence that Pythagoras believed that the soul is responsible for, not quite evolution, but general human experience. According to sources, Pythagoras said that he had been born many times, but first he was born as Aethelides. At some point during the life of Aethelides, Hermes had said to him that he would grant him any wish - apart from immortality, and Aethelides asked for the ability to remember things during life and after death. One of the ways in which nature has allowed us to evolve is that it keeps a firm grip of our experiences of ther world, to build, if you like, a genetic hard-wire. This genetic hard-wire may be that of absolute divination -- a concept that modern man has come far to disprove. But the soul, like the process of evolution takes no real form. It may well be represented by a bunch of numbers, to be interpreted in some way by the evolutionary biologist. Using this example, we cannot expect to under-pin reality outside the realms of monism, whereby, once our 'perceived' external world has evolved to such and such an extent, we need to sought new descriptions of nature to fit into it. We may imagine the soul of the human race as gaining experience by having looked at the world from different aspects. There is no doubt that early philosophers, such as Aristotle and Pythagoras paved the way for contemporary scientific discoveries. And with their use of plurals to describe how nature works, such as the principle elements, aither and the mind, their romantic concepts on these workings of nature are second to none.
As we go on, we'll see a number of theories unfold, not least the theory that our senses bind us -- particularly in this instance to our own dimension. The pieces fit together in a way that helps us to realize -- our perception -- as a consequence of the information we gather from senses is our universe.
We live within a macrocosm. Perhaps as time goes on, everything that exists now, will slowly move into a 'perceptual' microcosm, until it re-emerges, boundless as the aither. In the homeomeric theory of Anaxagoras, homeomeric being the collective term for 'homeomeries', which Anaxagoras describes as things of a certain kind having the same ingredients as things of other kinds, but different in proportion, he believed that the Mind is responsible for the separation of like from like. "Mind ordered all the things that were to be (the things that formerly existed but do not now, the things that are now, and will be in the future), including the present rotation in the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, air and aither are now rotating and being separated off (their separating off being a product of this rotation)." For instance, a gold block - chopped up into smaller pieces is still gold, but the whole contrast of its properties to another substance occurs after they have moved into a vortex. Perhaps one may identify with Anaxagoras' system and the system of other early philosophers as having moved along this vortex and re-emerging as the boundless. Because their broad usage of words to describe nature, although not one would call scientific, were all-encompassing. In Anaxagoras' theory, things don't appear homeomeric when they have been expanded or contracted from the translational ability of the senses. From what I can tell, in physical terms, the disproportionate* like from like occurs because after having moved through the micro-vortex, a seemingly new substance appears because the original ingredients that made them up had been the subject of internal collisions and had been cancelled out; and further he believed that this rotaion somehow spread out to create entirely new worlds. This is probably the first theoretical evidence for parallel universes."Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." Albert Einstein.
 
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #7 on: 23/11/2014 22:48:56 »
With this next part, we aim to put some flesh on the bones of reality. It probably goes without saying that our ability to perceive anything, is due to the fact that photons underpin this perception we call reality. But if our world consisted of only light, then we would not see at all. Perhaps at this stage it's best to say that perception is partly due to our ability to differentiate light, whether we actually 'see', or we imagine it. With this in mind, we can put forward the idea that the world we live in is one for which is dependent upon an observer; and that a world which does not depend on this differentiation is a far stretch from anything we have come to know. But what are the properties of light? This question has perplexed thinkers throughout the centuries. It was Isaac Newton who famously proposed that light was made up of quanta, or 'corpuscles', but in 1803, English physicist Thomas Young devised an experiment to show that light was consistent with having wave-like properties. This is famously known as the 'double-slit experiment.'

Young was able to show how passing a beam of light through two narrow slits, projected onto a screen, produced an interference pattern, alternating in light and dark fringes. This, he believed, could only be explained using a wave theory.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #8 on: 23/11/2014 22:51:15 »
Perhaps in the macroscopic world, our inability to hold a single concept of a particle with wave properties, transforms as our inability to accept an increased amount of photons. Real answers to explain phenomenae such as these escape translational ability: as we learn how to better view our world, macro-evolution forces another perspective which widens the reality gap.

We’re already aware that atoms make up everything. They make up the objects we see every day… they make up you and I. Yet atoms are almost completely made up of space and one hypothesis suggests they may be completely made up of space. But supposing you only almost don’t exist and that 99.99999999% of the space between each atom in your body was set free. According to measurements, you would be extremely tiny and this alone tells us that the universe is not as it seems. As we go about our daily routine – encompassed by the environment, our own bodies taking up more visual zoom than any object we encounter, it may be difficult to believe – as human perception goes, that such a large percentage of us doesn't exist. More so, that the tiny bit that does, does not lie in the illusion of our world, but is stored in some dark and distant corner of the universe. All of this, of course, is based on what we now know about atoms. But it hasn't always been this way. In those enormously productive years during the turn of the twentieth century, science struggled to find a tangible model for the atom. The nucleus is positive; an electron carries a negative charge. Evolutions in electromagnetism and thermodynamics led Neils Bohr from the conclusion that an electron orbiting a nucleus was 'like planets orbiting the sun.' But it was not a system that classical mechanics was apt to describe. It’s through questioning that we gain the means of experiment. And as the great physicist Max Planck once said, “Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal, the rest is poetry, imagination.”
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #9 on: 23/11/2014 22:53:23 »
At its best, quantum mechanics is a challenge - brought to us by the great minds of Einstein, Boltzmann and Planck- to name a few. But since then, a lot of questions have been asked that concern the understanding of the subject. Human perception is – for the most part, concerned with the macroscopic environment. During the daily routine we may see many things, -- trees, hills, birds etc, but the time when we will go about noticing atoms will not happen any time soon. By using the science of perception is a good way to gain an insight into the strange nature of quantum mechanics, because it’s able to direct questioning where it needs to be. Even so, one sees different results when one compares quantum behaviour to everyday life. It’s through the perturbation of the mind we may unite those results, but however strange the world may appear, however accessible the science of perception may make that world, there’s no escape from the fact that humans interpret everything with boundaries. These boundaries may at times seem impractical – since, as with the macroscopic, the study of the sub-macroscopic also requires means of this complicated, less than perfect understanding. Yet without boundaries, we would have no conscious thought at all. The uses of the science of perception are all about peeling back those complicated, less than perfect layers, then piecing them back together in an attempt to discover that which exists as we see it. One study hints at the possibility of individuals able to sense undiscovered microscopic territories, just as one may get a hunch about the macroscopic environment; and as the awareness between the two worlds deepen, we can see a certain degree of truth in the findings. The atomic world; the macroscopic world. It's unsurprising that while we don't go round behaving like atoms, there are deep analogies between the evolution of classical mechanics and the behaviour of the human mind.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #10 on: 23/11/2014 22:56:17 »
According to Planck's hypothesis: the energy of a photon is a discontinuous process - confined to discrete values. The particle may occupy only one energy level at a time. But it has been established that an electron has both properties of position and momenta. A particle is discontinuous, a wave on the other hand is not. Might the wave aspects of a particle mean that it could - however discrete, be present between two energy levels? We shall answer this question using a deduction of possibilities. First, it would be difficult to investigate the problem using a concept of either the photon or the electron, because of the involvement of phase factors and the fact that as an electron moves between states - it does so, not via a continuous transfer in which one would observe an orbital effect, but by absorbing or emitting magnitudes of energy, which determine the energy level that the electron will occupy. It would be difficult to investigate the problem in this section using a concept of either photon or electron that is, at least without an explanation as to why. The electron was first identified as a particle by J.J Thomson in 1879. The energy level corresponds to the position of the particle within an atom; and for the main part we shall be concerned with the electron, since light quanta may not be defined any more than its wavelength; whereas the electron is better apt to classical description. Unless otherwise stated, the term electron will be plural - in order to gain an idea of wave-like properties, as in slit experiments, for example. For when it is said that an electron has both wave and particle properties, it is meant that a precise location may be defined, but at the expense of wave-like properties: results depend on how the experiment is prepared. In a double-slit experiment, an electron is fired towards two slits A and B. Here, the probability that the particle will traverse either of the slits is equal. Only afterwards, when one consults the measuring apparatus, does the electron behave like a particle. This is because the wavefunction requires that an electron - fired towards two slits, traverses both at the same time and any attempt to define otherwise will be snapped up by the uncertainty principle. Whenever information about the position of the particle is gained, significant changes occur, not concerning the wavepacket at present, but information that was held about it previously. In optics, the results are multiplied by an uncontrollable phase factor, so an experiment to determine the position of the particle at one of the slits creates constructive interference and the wavefunction undergoes collapse. Only the amount of light present may determine results. Phase relations between the two functions are important in order to gain a definition of the electron; which at the quantum level, along with other physical objects, have wave-like properties. But after phase relations between A and B have been destroyed, there is perhaps a tendency to think that observation controls such behaviour. As pointed out in David Bohm's Quantum Theory, one would get absurd results if abrupt changes in the wavefunction could be brought about by an improvement in knowledge of the electron; and the inability to simultaneously measure x and p means an observer may not be in complete control of the classical environment - if there is no difference between predictions made and physical reality! Whenever one makes an exact calculation of the position of a particle, not only does the information come at the expense of information about its momenta, it comes at the expense of, as will be shown, calculation outside position space. Likewise, whenever one calculates the wave properties of the electron, it comes at the expense of knowledge of behaviour outside k-space. We could say that any experiment outside k-space would lead to discontinuity and any observation outside of the position vector leads to continuity. This may be obvious. An observation outside either of these vectors cannot yield the same answer, for such cannot not be gained from an external observation. It seems simple enough, either the electron may be viewed as particle or wave, but the uncertainty which is brought about by unpredictable and uncontrollable phase factors -- interference, mean one can be no closer in determining behaviour because there must hence be uncertainty in the extent of causal relations. When magnitude of a vector is large, so that a particle may not be localized because of destructive interference, then the electron behaves like a wave. The wave number of the electron corresponds to its spacial frequency. If we take one well defined particle, freeze its magnitude, then place these over a space much larger, we have formed a wave packet. Should interference between most, but not all of the possibilities for a relocation of our particle be destroyed, then we can highlight the reciprocal nature of human perception.
If quantum mechanics was completely stripped of its classical relations, the results could make no impression upon the measuring apparatus. Boundaries, even for a free particle must be given and so, destructive and constructive interference is the link between micro and macrocosms. A paradoxical effect would occur if we were to make the statement that, each time we gain a degree of knowledge of a quantum system, we must then sever classical relations which led to the recognition of such system. But we can, by a slow series of deductions, create new classical relations. This does not mean that matter is made up of classical particles; only that sense impressions made on the measuring apparatus must transform from statistical aggregate, into a classical observable. In fact, whenever one is faced with a set of unknown classical relations, this corresponds to the uncontrollable lack of knowledge (uncontrollable and unpredictable phase factors) which interfere with experimental boundaries.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #11 on: 23/11/2014 22:59:33 »
When one may gain an accurate description of any system, the methods used to obtain information - including system under observation become separate. Therefore, the information that enters the brain is not identical to the 'actual' state of the system. Inaccurate results may occur, because, unlike a photograph, the 'actual' state of systems involved are not still. Whenever one replaces averages with certainty, the observer has the effect on the system under observation in a way that could only yield a classical result. As mentioned in the preceding discussion, quantum theory would be unrealistic if relations to classical physics could not be applied. As in the case of quantum observation, a statistical aggregate can only be gained through a discrete series of stages; however, in this case, the object yielding the statistical result is no different to the observer yielding the statistical result. The issue with constructive interference alone, hence, the separation between object and observer, is that each part of the experiment continues to be subject to separate causal effects.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #12 on: 23/11/2014 23:01:41 »
Phenomena of perceived separation: The unobserved universe from a classically observed object

New classical relations are brought about after one relates an observable to some extended region inside its environment. All physical objects -- even a microscope may be perceived as having separate identity and consequent unification of one or more physical objects occurs - because closer definition of the object requires it. On a broad scale, this separation is inexpressibly linked. But there are examples, such as a photograph, when just like watching television, we suspend our belief in reality, also, the unconscious separation from such object to the rest of the 'cosmos.' There is perhaps a small point to consider here, with regards to human perception. When we observe a two-dimensional object such as a photograph, why does the brain separate that information from the greater aspect that remains unobserved? And do we suppose that a three-dimensional object -- inexpressibly linked to this hypothetical universe, because even when we close our eyes, we believe we experience three dimensions?
Many people believe there is a physical need for the existence of objects outside of human perception. Even if this were not true - there seems to be a need for the brain to believe it is so - if for nothing else, then perhaps for the sake of acuity of the senses. For if an individual did not believe in a greater unforseen part, then a sound from round the corner, or a smell would make a lot less sense in terms of perception. So although some awareness of the whole must exist within the brain, it is still something which for the most part goes unnoticed; even when an individual hears a sound from round the corner, as little effort as possible is needed to interpret the information, i.e, the brain will not go through the process of each time being aware of not being able to see the cause of information. So the unconscious brain chooses the extent of relations that it omits from the unconscious, yet by no means inactive 'cosmos.'
The brain rearranges the information it receives into the relevant amount of dimensions. How does perception of sound differ, to the information received by sound when the cause is unseen? Some definition of human perception can clearly be gained by observing how much of the unconcious 'cosmos' an individual uses when he or she takes in information.
If this unconscious space did not exist, perhaps we would be no different than a brain in a semi-sealed container. Perhaps we would attribute information gained from somewhere outside the container to an internal object, or even perceive it as a phenomenon. In early humans, some of the inclination towards superstition was likely linked to the amount of unconscious activity. Therefore, the answer to the question: how important is it how much one discounts a one, two, three or even four dimensional object from something it can't see - is, far as acuity of the senses goes, this is important.
One may pick up a leaf or grain of sand and observe the separation of the object in contrast to the environment. The object can be said to be discontinuous in contrast. Yet we know parts are discontinuous also; even planet Earth is discontinuous in the way it is not attached to any other body in space. One may assume that we gain such data by position; but also, the interval of time plays a huge part towards the characteristics we attribute to certain objects. This is because causal relations impact on objects according to the interval of time taken for an experiment.
Some of this brain activity, i.e, subtraction of data from the unconscious includes the function of spacial awareness, located in paretial lobe. Sigmund Freud proposed that our emotions - induced by external environment and interpreted by the individual, controls behaviour. Perhaps also it plays a key role in those who learn by reward: how one interprets information affects the unconscious decision to focus. But many of us learn by reward to some extent - even if it's only the satisfaction of getting the right answer. In quantum mechanics, a statistical aggregate is gained through the implication of causality in relation to an object. A classical interpretation of quantum theory would lead to the analogy of a brain in a semi-sealed container.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #13 on: 23/11/2014 23:03:52 »
The Classical Limit
Lines should be drawn which concern the meaning behind classical relations to quantum theory. A classical observation can only yield classical result; and on the other hand, classical apparatus may be used to describe quantum processes. The question of whether one can gain accurate results with the use of current methods is not important. Quantum theory is incomplete. So long as such data is obtained, measuring apparatus, system under observation and information relating to that is identical. It would make no sense to discount classical relations; i.e., to say the electron does not have particle properties would be a major denial to quantum physics!
When one may gain an accurate description of any system, the methods used to obtain data - including system under observation become separate. Therefore, the information that enters the brain is not identical to the 'actual' state of the system. Inaccurate results may occur - because unlike a photograph, the 'actual' state of systems involved are not captured. Whenever one replaces averages with certainty, the observer has the effect on the system under observation in a way that could only yield a classical result. But as mentioned in the preceding discussion, quantum theory would be unrealistic if relations to classical physics could not be applied, since in the case of quantum observation, a statistic can only be gained through a discrete series of values; however, in this case, the object yielding the statistical result is no different to the observer yielding the statistical result.
A more mathematical approach here, would be to refer to the Wentzel Kramers Brillouin approximation, or (WKB), which allows for a semi-classical calculation in quantum theory. The problem we were faced earlier, was that classical relations relating to observer and object as an indivisible unit were discrete as they were elusive. It is hoped therefore, that by referring to this method, we can make good use of our problem, since we are able to highlight the reciprocity of error obtained in quantum experiment.
The introduction of the WKB approximation brings us towards the classical limit in quantum theory. The semi-classical application to quantum theory is used here as a method to try to understand how quantum observations may be made via a classical apparatus. In some ways it is important to take a step back and observe the instance in which object and observer behave as indivisible unit; and this creates, that which may be observed and, therefore unavoidably expressed as tiny errors that change with the slow moving potential. But does this answer the question of how such method can be used without breaking the boundaries for an indivisible unit? Perhaps such observation would lead to a classical description and, therefore, incorrect results. Solutions to the Schrodinger equation for the wavefunction lead classically to Newton's equation of motion. In this case, the description is semi-classical and within the boundaries for quantum theory. This example is one way we can attempt to give an idea, at least, of how an indivisible unit has the ability to draw in a distant observer, errors and all, to the system. The slow changing part shows classical physics - combined with quantum theory in a phenomenon called "Stoke's phenomenon." One of the underlying mysteries we have yet to express in any detail, is how a quantum observation may be made at all. After all, if we were to take a digital photograph of a still that had been taken using SLR, we would find it difficult to maintain that the photograph consisted mainly of an SLR quality. But in fact, the reason one may make quantum observations with classical apparatus - as opposed to the example of the two photographs, is due to the existence of a Stoke's line of asymptotic expansion, named after Sir George Gabriel Stoke's. The fact that one can gain infinitely new values within a given magnitude already gives almost ubiquitous perspective, built upon semi-classical framework. The classical region defines within our perception of a quantum mechanical behaviour, while a large wave packet covers all classical regions. It seems then, unsurprising that an indivisible unit may only exist in this way. Also however, comes the realization that our initial thoughts on the unit - which must continuously be used in an observation can not easily be re-connected to the actual state of the system. It is a minor problem, albeit phenomae and shall not prevent us from further argument in favour of the work done so far. If we consider a stream of electrons, we are already aware that we may gain knowledge of position at the cost of wave properties. However, consider that one measures the position of photons within a beam of light, compared to a beam of light which we knew contained photons. On close inspection, there seems no difference between energy and potential. While closer inspection tells us that there must. When the wavelength is slow changing, kinetic energy within the potential is small enough that errors may at many times be overlooked. When magnitude is large, one may view quantum effects classically and gain approximations for classical events.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #14 on: 23/11/2014 23:15:43 »
Degeneracy of Hidden Variables

There are strong arguments against many concepts of hidden variables, mainly because of the requirement that each must exist simultaneous.

The hidden variable problem may be avoided if one pictures the variables as taking on the same energy as measuring apparatus and, therefore, system under observation. Observables that don't appear to bear causal relation to phenomena of wave-particle duality will inherrently appear without explanation as to why the particle may have such properties; apart from the assumption that those properties are degenerate. Human perception is reciprocal, as may be observed via Fourier transform. The brain has the power to separate certain properties of an object, in order to give the object clear definition and by observing how it interacts with the environment. One would be more likely to define objects as having no relation to hidden variables, thus enforcing their degeneracy. The closer one looks for an observable cause, the more the cause mimics the energy of the environment.

It's unlikely that a physical degeneration of hidden variables occur as the result of observation made on the particle. More likely, the brain cannot function without its means of defining a system. On that note, it is possible that hidden variables occur in nature, for which we are unable to express in detail; as is a function of the mind that does not translate into the perceptual domain via Fourier transform.

The harmonic oscillator is used to describe many quantum processes. In particular, it is useful in Group Theory, also as an aid to predict levels of degeneracy for symmetry problems. A major part of Group Theory is to highlight the symmetry of systems, by which the classification of molecules may be achieved. If the integral is zero, then the magnitude has symmetry element - and therefore identity.

One can easily imagine that on a deeper level of quantum, an object too small to be detected by current methods undergo degeneracy to the extent that the overall energy of the system mimics that of the classical apparatus. An analogy would be to consider the way in which one defines an object. Although one knows that the object contains properties that are not readily observable, because such properties cannot be attributed to the object at the macroscopic level, their existence may nevertheless be perceived as taking on the same value as the object that may readily be observed; for example, one would not normally look at the sea and define it as a bunch of H2o particles.

Phenomena, such as position and momenta may be the result of a decreased availability of space.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #15 on: 23/11/2014 23:18:04 »
In Group Theory, the relation between symmetry and degeneracy is that, while degeneracy of a system may be predicted, the hamiltonian does not change in the symmetry operation; the hamiltonian remains invariant under the relavant point group.

The invariance of H, combined with inverse operation R-1 R, yeilds HR 'l' i= ER 'l' i(note to reader, no cut and paste eq). Where 'l' iis the eigenfunction of the hamiltonian and E is the corresponding eigenvalue.

The reason Group Theory may be used as an aid to describe the existence of hidden variables such as position and momenta is that to do so, does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The observable that yeilds the properties one wishes to describe is therefore unchanged.

A full definition of such phenomenae - along those lines -- might entail a concept of which the brain may never be capable; and in any case, the identity of the system used to describe the duality would be lost. However, since position and momenta are properties of objects, Group Theory is a subtle way to highlight the posibility of hidden variables.

But does this offer any explanation to degeneration of hidden variables at all, since so far this article only highlights the fact that they remain unobservable? The explanation lies within the possibility that hidden variables maintain the identity of objects a) through a decrease in the amount of space, b) in the way that they simultaneously exist (that is one can't see them), in order to conserve the identity of physical objects that an observer wishes to gain more knowledge of.


This equation also represents the system by which an observer may only observe aspects of an object that are readily observable.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #16 on: 23/11/2014 23:19:57 »
This article takes a non-local approach to the subject of hidden variables with local correlations. It is also attributing to the Pilot-wave theory, or the de Broglie-Bohm theory. Local, in the sense that hidden variables have no identity until distributed in a way that the identity itself is that of the observable system. The non-local aspects are that the observable system pertains to that of the entire universe. Observation of the system causes degeneracy with regards to hidden variables. While hidden variables cause degeneracy in the opposing manner: in that they re-inforce identity of the system. Here, position and momenta exist simultaneous. But complete knowledge of their distribution in space is as difficult to ascertain as a complete knowledge of the observable system.


In the combined local/non-local theory of degeneracy of hidden variables - space essentially is the determistic distribution, which has correlations to the rest of the universe. The configuration of the universe therefore sets deterministic distribution of coined terms such as position and momenta and may help to describe the process by which the universe was created - because at certain levels the variables take on a constant value, in the way that they create identity of a system. This may be translated to the macro environment, where the identity of systems is nothing less than a description for one's surroundings. However, the idea of simultaneous existing position and momenta is a concept one may not grasp. The movement of space corresponds to momenta. The interlocking of space at certain levels corresponds to position. Space, by very nature is a thing that falls into itself to the point of almost ubiquity.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #17 on: 23/11/2014 23:22:28 »
Identity of objects is created (remember we have only the vastness of space), by infinitesimal interlocking that create more and more gravity.
 
Quantum entanglement: action at a distance.

Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon of a pair or group of particles that at arbitrarily large distances cannot be described independent of the other. Albert Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance." The application of Group Theory to the phenomena of hidden variables may help to avoid contradicton with the theory of relativity. In the "degeneracy of hidden variables", the observer forces a degeneracy, while hidden variables reinforce their purpose. This action preserves the speed of light. Problems arise which concern the light barrier when arbitrarily large distances are considered. Because the entangled pair make the whole system, the identity of the object cannot be reinforced and this gives the impression of "spooky action at a distance." Take the identity of molecules as an example. The fact that the system has identity, highlights the acknoldgement of a system - having been scrutinized by an observer and stubborbly resisted by the hidden variables. When one considers why action at a distance occurs, hidden variables cannot complete the task of reinforcing identity of the system; no light occurs between a coupled state at such large distance because identity of the system has not been acknowledged. That the particle properties are reflections of each other implies it is a statistical aggregate of a complete system as may be observed in a vector model. To question action at a distance is perhaps equal to question whether the moon exists in three dimensions because we only get to see one side.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #18 on: 23/11/2014 23:24:28 »
Those who believe quantum theory is complete will no doubt find evidence that a hidden variables theory is not needed through Werner Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. However, one wishing to relate Albert Einstein's relativity theory - with quantum theory will disagree. For some, the question is not merely that if one can describe reality with abstract means, then is an alternative picture needed - that a complete theory may account for? But rather, how Einstein's theory of light can be neglected in favour of quantum phenomena.

Group theory teaches the importance of the ability to define systems. Those systems however, can only be accounted for with a theory of light. But if such a system was to violate that theory, then where would be the axioms to suggest an identity for the system? E=mc2 may account for the assumption that there are hidden forces at work. It accounts for how a system may be identified and may account for the reason why coupled particles at arbitrarily large distance cannot be comprehended due to light speed. On the other hand, one can combine Heisenberg and Einstein's theory if one assumes that a system may accurately be described either way, but only if a proportional change in distance is equal to a proportional change in speed.
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #19 on: 23/11/2014 23:26:05 »
The degeneracy of hidden variables idea cannot logically be disproved via a measure of physical qualities. This is because the observables they describe do not propose a violation of the speed of light. Position and momenta are the fundamental of everything, it would always allow for experimental matches or mismatches. A local hidden variables theory however, may find itself open to scrutiny, if it offers no way to understand how systems in states of chaos may be ordered through the nature of light and conservation of energy. There is a limit to how one may describe an observable system and one of those being Bell's theorem. A local/non local theory of hidden variables is less likely to be intercepted by such argument, because the identity of the system is left unchanged. An argument about determinism is not relavent then; one would get deterministic results half the time and indeterministic results the other half.

" There is no real difference between determinism and indeterminism if a system that is determined does not imply that the act of determining that system was done under the same rule. There is no real difference between determinism and indeterminism if neither it implies it was not order that prevented indeterminism in the first place. Most likely, the brain creates order from a preconception that there was indeed any chaos."
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #20 on: 23/11/2014 23:28:42 »
Simulated Reality

When thinking of a simulated reality, one’s first reaction might be to reject the idea as something of a fictional foundation. People believe many things on principle; these are the characteristics given to us by parents, then by society as we move into some system of belief, be that Christianity, atheism or science. But the idea that we live in a simulated world is much too simple. For reality may well be a computer translation – even if that reality never began until humans invented computers! The idea is not a new one. According to mathematician Hanz Morovec, the universe may be perceived as the existence of a simulation. This philosophical hypothesis was first published in 1998. But while the idea that we live in a simulated world is exciting, the subject has been a focus of scepticism. Those who are sceptical imagine some kind of sci-fi scene, but the truth is the hypothesis is just a way of looking at a system that standard physics attempts to describe. When we play a video game, we know there’s a difference between what’s happening on-screen, to what’s happening off-screen. But while everything we perceive has been picked up by the senses, we may be fooling ourselves if we exclude the possibility of simulated reality based on a single argument. It’s possible to create computer simulations. And unless – while we’re doing it we have become separate from the universe, then it’s possible for the universe to create computer simulations. The question is, how many virtual dimensions can we recreate that allow us to interact without the psychological separation; that is the separation between what we think reality is. When we watch television, we’re able to suspend our belief of reality. Temporarily, we are fooled into believing we are somehow in the picture and the earliest examples are seen in books. Hanz Morovec wrote, “Is the Mount Rushmore monument a rock formation or
four presidents’ faces? Is a ventriloquist’s dummy a lump of wood, a human simulacrum, or a personality sharing some of the ventriloquist’s body and mind? Is a video game a box of silicon bits, an electronic circuit flipping its own switches, a computer following a long list of instructions, or a large three-dimensional world inhabited by the Mario Brothers and their mushroom adversaries? But to recreate ourselves within a simulated world is not so simple as to cancel the observations that cause us to be psychologically separated – if, in the simulation we are to be conscious observers. The simulated world would be subject to its own laws and in cancelling any ability would leave us entirely within those laws where conscious observers need not exist. It’s by realizing the separation between various aspects of ‘reality’ that make us who we are; and so, in linking to any other set of laws, we would need a separate link for an ability to ‘see.’ Visual Symmetrics attempts to address the problem as it addresses time-travel, through the means of consciousness. Physical time-travel seems impractical so far as perception goes, because the time-traveller, in order to accurately visit a point in time, would a) need to have adequate altered perception, b) need to have the adequate biological alterations. But in time-travel, just as in moving to a simulated reality we would be unwise if we were to cancel any perception in an attempt to gain accurate results, since there would be no way to return to our normal environment. The exploration of the possibility of time-travel is a good way to highlight problems of being able to move into simulated reality. To say we could accurately time-travel using unaltered perception, would be equal to say we could move into a simulated environment and remain exactly as we are now.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #21 on: 24/11/2014 00:22:55 »
Quote
What we will be attempting to address in this part, is how sense perception governs the whole of reality.

Stop right there, my friend. Perception demands a perceiver, and sense perception, if it means anything at all, demands a perceiver with a neural system. As far as we know, the observable universe is a lot older than any neural system, and neural systems evolved from the elements of the universe, so reality governs perception, not the other way around. 

Quote
The problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with perception.

Wrong.There is never a problem with experimental data. Like it or not, the result you have is the result you got. What distinguishes science from philosophy is the humility to begin with the world as it is, not a preconception of how it should be.

Quote
one would not normally look at the sea and define it as a bunch of H2o particles.
unless you wanted to ask why it is a liquid, why icebergs float, what accounts for its extraordinary heat capacity, its ability to dissolve ionic solids, or indeed almost any question about its remarkable behaviour and characteristics.

I suspect you have fallen into a fairly common trap of taking a jargon word from physics - "observer" - and assigning it its colloquial meaning of a sentient (usually human) being. That's the first step on the path to selfdelusion. The second step is imagining that the "laws of physics" are something imposed on nature: the fact is that they are no more than discovered mathematical approximations to experimental data. 
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #22 on: 24/11/2014 02:10:09 »
I always entertain the idea of the stubborn, push/pull of psychological and physcical reality.  Psychological reality is physical; and on the other hand, the data one extracts from the universe becomes the individual reality to the extent that it is a universe in its own right.  I believe that if one does not entertain the idea of both forms, but rather, takes reality to include that which one mainly can't see, then it seems an arbitrary argument, however, I have still made my point.  Reality, whether the individual believes it to be made up mainly from that which one can't see- is a concept and as such belongs to the perceptual domain.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2014 02:23:00 by TheMoon »
 

Offline TheMoon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #23 on: 24/11/2014 02:43:10 »
In order to obtain more accurate results, measuring apparatus should be close to osscillations as possible.  The limits of how close the measuring apparatus can get, is a limit to perception. The oscillations one can't account for degenerate into the observable system.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #24 on: 24/11/2014 17:45:42 »
Hail to the next leader of the Liberal Democrat party! A thousand beautiful, meaningless words, and not a shred of evidence.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Quantum Mechanics: The Road to Reality
« Reply #24 on: 24/11/2014 17:45:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums