The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Quantum experiment - the reality doesn't exist until it is measured  (Read 3505 times)

Offline zzzoli23

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
A few week ago a have posted a theory about the afterlife is created by humans as well, and our reality exist only in the imagination, and it is probably the mind's network wich is connected. Now this article can prove that the reality does not exist until it is measured. I tell you guys there is a Creator, as the phrase says: The science is like a glass of water. The first sip is the atheism, but at the bottom of the glass there is God.

newbielink:http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness [nonactive]

newbielink:http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/...343.html#/ref3 [nonactive]


 

Offline zzzoli23

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Isaac Newton
But I tell you, you don't need to believe in the creation, just believe in humanity. We can reach the world peace, and if we did we will build a machine for the peoples to create a virtual reality, and to teach them why they don't have to behave badly. Just need some hope for the world peace.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
God seems to be at the root of most of the world's current conflicts. Not your god, obviously, since everyone thinks his god is the ultimate justification for the evil that he does and all other gods are false. Dawkins is in many ways a lesser intellect than Newton, but his statement "the only thing all religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others" sums up this reprehensible human invention. 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
God seems to be at the root of most of the world's current conflicts. Not your god, obviously, since everyone thinks his god is the ultimate justification for the evil that he does and all other gods are false. Dawkins is in many ways a lesser intellect than Newton, but his statement "the only thing all religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others" sums up this reprehensible human invention.
He's not quite right in that statement because it's incomplete. It should read "the only thing all religions have in common is that each one teaches you that all other religions are wrong."  I've never heard a religious person saying that another religion should be despised.
 

Offline Beer w/Straw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Transcendental Ignorance!
    • View Profile
One thing I wondered, since Newton was a smart person and must of known what happened to Galileo for going against the Catholic Church before him, was all Newton's religious conviction just a facade to protect against any similar fate?

:EDIT:

Wait.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

Wasn't that, Heisenberg, and not Newton, though?
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 22:42:23 by Beer w/Straw »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Beer w/Straw
One thing I wondered, since Newton was a smart person and must of known what happened to Galileo for going against the Catholic Church before him, was all Newton's religious conviction just a facade to protect against any similar fate?
That's a great question. I don't know the answer so I just e-mailed a gentleman I know who's a physics historian about this. I'll let you know what I learn.

In the meantime I suspect that it might have to do with the fact that Newton lived in England and was subject to the Church of England whereas Galileo was subject to the Roman Catholic Church.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Beer w/Straw
One thing I wondered, since Newton was a smart person and must of known what happened to Galileo for going against the Catholic Church before him, was all Newton's religious conviction just a facade to protect against any similar fate?
That's a great question. I don't know the answer so I just e-mailed a gentleman I know who's a physics historian about this. I'll let you know what I learn.

In the meantime I suspect that it might have to do with the fact that Newton lived in England and was subject to the Church of England whereas Galileo was subject to the Roman Catholic Church.
I think Newton was genuine in his beliefs, mainly because he didn't hold mainstream views and would have been considered a heretic. I think he did hide these views to some extent.
He was into all sorts of ideas including neumerology - the spectrum is continuous so you could divide it into a range of colours, he think he chose 7 as a magic number.
He didn't believe in Trinity etc.
The Protestant church was just as keen as the Catholics to root out heretics because they were trying to suppress Catholicism. Similar to Spanish Inquisition where you could be accused if your household used olive oil as this was a Moorish influence!
Many religions (including Communism) have a 'good in principle' basis, it takes humans to really mess it up.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Colin2B
I think Newton was genuine in his beliefs, mainly because he didn't hold mainstream views and would have been considered a heretic. I think he did hide these views to some extent.
That's quite true. Wikipedia confirms what you just said. Is that where you learned it?

Quote from: Colin2B
He was into all sorts of ideas including neumerology - the spectrum is continuous so you could divide it into a range of colours, he think he chose 7 as a magic number.
I think that the number 7 is special for some reason. I.e. I think most people think of it as their favorite number or their lucky number if they have such views. I always liked the number 7 but I think that's because channel 7 was the one that came through the clearest on our TV when I was a kid.

Quote from: Colin2B
He didn't believe in Trinity etc.
If I was a Christian then I doubt that I'd believe it too. Most Unitarians hold that some elements of some Trinity and Incarnation doctrines are self-contradictory.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile

That's quite true. Wikipedia confirms what you just said. Is that where you learned it?
No, there was a docmentary about his life many years ago and some facts really stood out. Complex beliefs, alchemy etc.

I think that the number 7 is special for some reason. I.e. I think most people think of it as their favorite number or their lucky number if they have such views. I always liked the number 7 but I think that's because channel 7 was the one that came through the clearest on our TV when I was a kid.
It is special in some Jewish/Biblical traditions. 7 days, 7 tribes, 7 candlesticks (perhaps representing tribes??), 7 years to work for hand of lady, 7 dreams I seem to remember or was it 7 years famine? Hence the numeroligists pick it up, don't know much about it, just the odd opinion here & there.
 

Offline Fruityloop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I found the experiment in the opening post a little bit hard to understand. But here's an experiment which I think is analogous.  Imagine you're firing atoms one at a time at a piece of paper with two slits in it.  After the atom passes through the paper, a detector is then randomly added.  When the detector is added, the atoms pile up behind one or the other slits and behaves like a particle. But when the detector is not added, the atoms pile up in the form of an interference pattern like a wave.  But how did the atom 'know' ahead of time whether there was going to be a detector there or not? The presence of the detector changes the path of the atom after it already went through the paper. Is this similar to the experiment in the opening post? It's pretty weird.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 01:42:29 by Fruityloop »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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