How did an Electron Evolve to Know When Man is Looking at It, and Thus Change It's Course?

[StevenMerten]

The Strange Link
between the Human Mind and Quantum Physics
by Philip Ball, 16 February 2017​

If nature seems to be changing its behavior depending on whether we "look" or not, we could try to trick it into showing its hand. To do so, we could measure which path a particle took through the double slits, but only after it has passed through them. By then, it ought to have "decided" whether to take one path or both.

An experiment for doing this was proposed in the 1970s by the American physicist John Wheeler, and this "delayed choice" experiment was performed in the following decade. It uses clever techniques to make measurements on the paths of quantum particles (generally, particles of light, called photons) after they should have chosen whether to take one path or a superposition of two.

It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon's path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference.
The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics​

Quantum science (subatomic particles), from its discovery 100 years ago, shows that a particle is not a particle, but instead a wave of possibilities, until man looks at them, and then, and only then, do they become a particle, to form into everything physical in the universe. We know that, when an electron exists as a wave of a multitude of possible places it could be, this is a physical state. We know this because all these, possible places the electron could be, are bumping into one anther, to cause a physical wave, which physically alters the location of an electron. An electron physically exists in all/or many, places at one time, when man is not looking at it. An electron exists in one, and only one, place when man is looking at it. I think science should consider this capability, which an electron has 'evolved' to, a miracle.

Subatomic particles also develop a past when man' looks at them. Where the past of an electron was a wave of possibilities, when man looks at the electron, now the electron's past, is a past of being a particle, all the way back to the big bang. I think science should classify this capability, which an electron has 'evolved' to, a miracle.

 

[John Bowen]

Take what you just wrote about electrons we know this true its proven science . So logically that is how the earth was also created not from the big bang which has never been proven at any level in science just theory . The Creator of everything focused his mind just like ( the scientist focused his mind ) and the earth was there no big bang cloud of dust just there .

 

[Radagast]

Quantum science (subatomic particles), from its discovery 100 years ago, shows that a particle is not a particle, but instead a wave of possibilities, until man looks at them, and then, and only then, do they become a particle, to form into everything physical in the universe.

That's not an accurate depiction. In particular, the wave function is not a wave of probabilities -- it's a complex-valued function.

And there's nothing in the theory about being observed by man. Any piece of equipment will do.

 

[StevenMerten]

Take what you just wrote about electrons we know this true its proven science . So logically that is how the earth was also created not from the big bang which has never been proven at any level in science just theory . The Creator of everything focused his mind just like ( the scientist focused his mind ) and the earth was there no big bang cloud of dust just there .

Hello John,
Actually it is showing is that conscience man and the universe do not exist one without the other.

Basically God brought everything in the universe into existence, thousands of years ago, on the week Adam was made. Once Adam, (conscience man), first experienced existence, only at that moment, did the universe also now exist, with a past that then exists, but never actually existed before the week Adam was made. (note: God's five days of Creation, before Adam came into existence, needs to be discussed, and certainly did happen).

Albert Einstein stated, 'I would like to think the moon was there, even when I wasn't looking at it!'. Einstein is talking about Neils Bohr's Quantum Theory. So, when there is no longer any conscience beings in the universe, there will no longer be a universe. So far, 100 years after the Einstein vs Bohr conflict on reality and Quantum Theory, after many experiments, observations, and thinking by scientists, Bohr is winning (meaning this is really how the universe and reality, really works).

 

[Legroom]

There is a very simple answer to this problem. God is the creator of the life that evolved from initial primitive forms that were planted on the earth when the planet reached a stage that life could be sustained. Its our fault (religion) for making the false claim that God wrote the Israelites creation story.

 

[StevenMerten]

There is a very simple answer to this problem. God is the creator of the life that evolved from initial primitive forms that were planted on the earth when the planet reached a stage that life could be sustained. Its our fault (religion) for making the false claim that God wrote the Israelites creation story.

Neils Bohr
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."​

Hello Legroom, You do understand that subatomic particles, are not particles making up the universe, unless a conscious observer, man (Adam) is looking at them, Right? You do understand that an electron can read the future, and knows if a conscious observer, man, is going to look at them in the future, and thus switch to form a particle in the past of physical time, Right?

Accord ding to Neils Bohr, pioneer of Quantum Theory (how subatomic particles behave), there is no reality without a conscious observer, Adam, looking at the universe. Are you questioning Neils Bohr?

Please visit:
Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism

 

[Legroom]

Neils Bohr
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."​

Hello Legroom, You do understand that subatomic particles, are not particles making up the universe, unless a conscious observer, man (Adam) is looking at them, Right? You do understand that an electron can read the future, and knows if a conscious observer, man, is going to look at them in the future, and thus switch to form a particle in the past of physical time, Right?

Accord ding to Neils Bohr, pioneer of Quantum Theory (how subatomic particles behave), there is no reality without a conscious observer, Adam, looking at the universe. Are you questioning Neils Bohr?

Please visit:
Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism

Particles don't have "mind".

 

[Gbob]

That's not an accurate depiction. In particular, the wave function is not a wave of probabilities -- it's a complex-valued function.

And there's nothing in the theory about being observed by man. Any piece of equipment will do.

To introduce my background, I am a physicist by training, geophysicist by profession. In general Radagast, I have agreed with your position in this discussion. Mr. Merton doesn't quite understand quantu. However, Any piece of equipment won't do as the observer. There are three reasons for this. First the von Neumann chain.

"In his rigourous 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechannics, John von Neumann showed that quantum theory makes physics' encounter with consciousness inevitable. He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter, for example. It is isolated from the rest of the world but makes contact with a quantum system, say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. This Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is in the top box and to remain unfired if the atom is in the bottom box. Von Neumann showed that if the Geiger counter is a physical system governed by quantum mechanics, it would enter a superposition state with the atom and be, simultaneously, in a fired and an un fired state. (We saw this situation in the case of Schrodinger's cat.)"

"Should a second isolated measuring apparatus come into contact with the Geiger counter-for example, an electronic device recording whether the Geiger counter has fired-it joins the superposition state and records both situations existing simultaneously. This so-called "von Neumann chain" can continue indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state wavefunction to yield a particular result."

"However, when we look at the Geiger counter, we will always see a particular result, not a superposition. Von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer doing something that is not presently encompassed by physics can collapse a wavefunction. Though for all practical purposes one can consider the wavefunction collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the von Neumann chain, von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer can actually make an observation." Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 184


My guess is you are a decoherence advocate given your view that any machine will suffice to act as the observer. The second reason is that even the founders of decoherence view don't believe it solves the observer problem. Schlosshauer has an interesting paragraph in this in his article It is a quotation down to the double asterisks:


"In his monumental book on the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM), Auletta (2000, p. 791) concludes that

the Measurement theory could be part of the interpretation of QM only to the extent that it would still be an open problem, and we think that this is largely no longer the case.

This is mainly so because, according to Auletta (2000, p. 289),

decoherence is able to solve practically all the problems of Measurement which have been discussed in the previous chapters.

On the other hand, even leading adherents of decoherence have expressed caution or even doubt that decoherence has solved the measurement problem. Joos (2000, p. 14) writes
Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.

Along these lines, Kiefer and Joos (1999, p. 5) warn that

One often finds explicit or implicit statements to the effect that the above processes are equivalent to the collapse of the wave function (or even solve the measurement problem). Such statements are certainly unfounded.

In a response to Anderson’s (2001, p. 492) comment, Adler (2003, p. 136) states

I do not believe that either detailed theoretical calculations or recent experimental results show that decoherence has resolved the difficulties associated with quantum measurement theory.

Similarly, Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3) writes

Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best.

Zeh asserts (Joos et al., 2003, Ch. 2)

Decoherence by itself does not yet solve the measurement problem (...). This argument is nonetheless found wide-spread in the literature. (...) It does seem that the measurement problem can only be resolved if the Schrodinger dynamics (...) is supplemented by a nonunitary collapse (...)."

Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf, p. 2,3
**


The third reason that decoherence won't work is that it has been experimentally disproven. Decoherence says that the particle interacts with its environment and the coherence is lost by these interactions. But this doesn't happen in practice. The experiment with buckeyballs, put into a quantum state (C60 and C70). In order for them to be put into the quantum state, unlike almost all other experiments, they must be heated to high temperatures before they go through the apparatus. In this state, they have an average of 3-4 emissions and absorptions each, meaning 6-8 total interactions with with photons prior to their passage through the apparatus. Furthermore the buckeyball molecule itself has 174 degrees of freedom and large number of vibrational modes are what decoherence uses to 'collapse' the matrix. If decoherence worked, these two things should prevent there being any quantum effects after that much interaction. As Leggett says:


"Let us now try to assess the decoherence argument. Actually, the most economical
tactic at this point would be to go directly to the results of the next section, namely that it is experimentally refuted!" A. J. Leggett, Testing the Limits of Quantum Mechanics: Motivation, state of Play, Prospects," J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 (2002) R415–R451, R429

Of course, people don't pay attention to this detail like they should, and continue to believe decoherence replaces the observer. In Leggetts article he gives a lot of examples of experimental refutation of decoherence, mostely using squids, josephson junctions etc.

I have come to be a firm believer that quantum proves the existence of the immaterial soul. It does NOT prove what metaphysics or theology goes with that immaterial soul. It could be that it is one universal soul, although I don't believe that option.

There is absolutely NO way to formulate quantum without having humans involved in it. I think this is God screaming at us that we are very special objects in this universe. Two Nobel prize winners also say humans are essential to quantum.

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics
in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, in Eugene Wigner, Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, Springer, 2012, p. 172

"Fundamentally, I have an ideal of what a physical theory should be. It should be something that doesn't refer in any specific way to human beings. It should be something from which everything else--including anything you can say systematically about chemistry, or biology, or human affairs--can be derived. It shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature. And yet, I don't see any way of formulating quantum mechanics without an interpretative postulate that refers to what happens when people choose to measure one thing or another." Steven Weinberg cited by Tim Folger, How Does the Quantum World Cross Over?, Scientific American, July 2018, p. 32

 

[Halbhh]

To introduce my background, I am a physicist by training, geophysicist by profession. In general Radagast, I have agreed with your position in this discussion. Mr. Merton doesn't quite understand quantu. However, Any piece of equipment won't do as the observer. There are three reasons for this. First the von Neumann chain.

"In his rigourous 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechannics, John von Neumann showed that quantum theory makes physics' encounter with consciousness inevitable. He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter, for example. It is isolated from the rest of the world but makes contact with a quantum system, say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. This Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is in the top box and to remain unfired if the atom is in the bottom box. Von Neumann showed that if the Geiger counter is a physical system governed by quantum mechanics, it would enter a superposition state with the atom and be, simultaneously, in a fired and an un fired state. (We saw this situation in the case of Schrodinger's cat.)"

"Should a second isolated measuring apparatus come into contact with the Geiger counter-for example, an electronic device recording whether the Geiger counter has fired-it joins the superposition state and records both situations existing simultaneously. This so-called "von Neumann chain" can continue indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state wavefunction to yield a particular result."

"However, when we look at the Geiger counter, we will always see a particular result, not a superposition. Von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer doing something that is not presently encompassed by physics can collapse a wavefunction. Though for all practical purposes one can consider the wavefunction collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the von Neumann chain, von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer can actually make an observation." Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 184


My guess is you are a decoherence advocate given your view that any machine will suffice to act as the observer. The second reason is that even the founders of decoherence view don't believe it solves the observer problem. Schlosshauer has an interesting paragraph in this in his article It is a quotation down to the double asterisks:


"In his monumental book on the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM), Auletta (2000, p. 791) concludes that

the Measurement theory could be part of the interpretation of QM only to the extent that it would still be an open problem, and we think that this is largely no longer the case.

This is mainly so because, according to Auletta (2000, p. 289),

decoherence is able to solve practically all the problems of Measurement which have been discussed in the previous chapters.

On the other hand, even leading adherents of decoherence have expressed caution or even doubt that decoherence has solved the measurement problem. Joos (2000, p. 14) writes
Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.

Along these lines, Kiefer and Joos (1999, p. 5) warn that

One often finds explicit or implicit statements to the effect that the above processes are equivalent to the collapse of the wave function (or even solve the measurement problem). Such statements are certainly unfounded.

In a response to Anderson’s (2001, p. 492) comment, Adler (2003, p. 136) states

I do not believe that either detailed theoretical calculations or recent experimental results show that decoherence has resolved the difficulties associated with quantum measurement theory.

Similarly, Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3) writes

Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best.

Zeh asserts (Joos et al., 2003, Ch. 2)

Decoherence by itself does not yet solve the measurement problem (...). This argument is nonetheless found wide-spread in the literature. (...) It does seem that the measurement problem can only be resolved if the Schrodinger dynamics (...) is supplemented by a nonunitary collapse (...)."

Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf, p. 2,3
**


The third reason that decoherence won't work is that it has been experimentally disproven. Decoherence says that the particle interacts with its environment and the coherence is lost by these interactions. But this doesn't happen in practice. The experiment with buckeyballs, put into a quantum state (C60 and C70). In order for them to be put into the quantum state, unlike almost all other experiments, they must be heated to high temperatures before they go through the apparatus. In this state, they have an average of 3-4 emissions and absorptions each, meaning 6-8 total interactions with with photons prior to their passage through the apparatus. Furthermore the buckeyball molecule itself has 174 degrees of freedom and large number of vibrational modes are what decoherence uses to 'collapse' the matrix. If decoherence worked, these two things should prevent there being any quantum effects after that much interaction. As Leggett says:


"Let us now try to assess the decoherence argument. Actually, the most economical
tactic at this point would be to go directly to the results of the next section, namely that it is experimentally refuted!" A. J. Leggett, Testing the Limits of Quantum Mechanics: Motivation, state of Play, Prospects," J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 (2002) R415–R451, R429

Of course, people don't pay attention to this detail like they should, and continue to believe decoherence replaces the observer. In Leggetts article he gives a lot of examples of experimental refutation of decoherence, mostely using squids, josephson junctions etc.

I have come to be a firm believer that quantum proves the existence of the immaterial soul. It does NOT prove what metaphysics or theology goes with that immaterial soul. It could be that it is one universal soul, although I don't believe that option.

There is absolutely NO way to formulate quantum without having humans involved in it. I think this is God screaming at us that we are very special objects in this universe. Two Nobel prize winners also say humans are essential to quantum.

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics
in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, in Eugene Wigner, Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, Springer, 2012, p. 172

"Fundamentally, I have an ideal of what a physical theory should be. It should be something that doesn't refer in any specific way to human beings. It should be something from which everything else--including anything you can say systematically about chemistry, or biology, or human affairs--can be derived. It shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature. And yet, I don't see any way of formulating quantum mechanics without an interpretative postulate that refers to what happens when people choose to measure one thing or another." Steven Weinberg cited by Tim Folger, How Does the Quantum World Cross Over?, Scientific American, July 2018, p. 32

Very interesting post! I agree with your viewpoint at least in a way, in at least that it is suggestive we may be indispensable to reality in some manner (not merely in our own terms even perhaps).

Who knew when we were kids the old "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" this would be more than only a fun philosophical exercise, but instead a relevant question about real things?

Side question:

"It does seem that the measurement problem can only be resolved if the Schrodinger dynamics (...) is supplemented by a nonunitary collapse (...)."

The phrase "nonunitary collapse" was unfamiliar to me (I have a degree in Engineering Physics, but haven't read deeply in QM). A quick superficial glance at 'unitary' via wiki makes it sound merely like some conservation thing or even a determinism. (I understand the wave function evolves in a deterministic way, but that doesn't tell us reality is fully deterministic.) I did not find a quick explanation of 'nonunitary'.

If a human soul can alter reality in the sense of what non-physicists folks commonly think of as everyday reality (newtonian mechanics, etc.) there are so many possible general situations about how the soul is in our physical world, even whether it is entirely physical even including not yet discovered physics of this local universe, or instead from another reality. But I'm curious to learn more about 'nonunitary' , to better understand what it means.

 

[Gbob]

Hi Hal

Very interesting post! I agree with your viewpoint at least in a way, in at least that it is suggestive we may be indispensable to reality in some manner (not merely in our own terms even perhaps).

Who knew when we were kids the old "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" this would be more than only a fun philosophical exercise, but instead a relevant question about real things?

Side question:

"It does seem that the measurement problem can only be resolved if the Schrodinger dynamics (...) is supplemented by a nonunitary collapse (...)."

The phrase "nonunitary collapse" was unfamiliar to me (I have a degree in Engineering Physics, but haven't read deeply in QM). A quick superficial glance at 'unitary' via wiki makes it sound merely like some conservation thing or even a determinism. (I understand the wave function evolves in a deterministic way, but that doesn't tell us reality is fully deterministic.) I did not find a quick explanation of 'nonunitary'.

If a human soul can alter reality in the sense of what non-physicists folks commonly think of as everyday reality (newtonian mechanics, etc.) there are so many possible general situations about how the soul is in our physical world, even whether it is entirely physical even including not yet discovered physics of this local universe, or instead from another reality. But I'm curious to learn more about 'nonunitary' , to better understand what it means.

Hi Halbhh, The term unitary means causal (fancy word for simple concept). Therefore nonunitary means acausal because so far as is observed quantum events seem to have no causation.

There seems to be no evidence that the human consciousness/soul can change macroscopic things. It does, however seem to be able to change the past and what is observed via mental decisions. There is a very recent, still very controversial paper by Frauchiger and Renner which says that quantum can not be applied to human observers. Their paper is an extension of Wigner's friend paradox (a classic quantum paradox). Wigner, too, found that his paradox evaporated if he assumed quantum didn't apply to consciousness.

"It may be premature to believe that the present philosophy of quantum mechanics will remain a permanent feature of future physical theories; it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality. Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, in Eugene Wigner, Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, Springer, 2012, p. 172

And there is extremely recent experimental evidence by Proietta et al, that supports their position. Both of these works cause huge problems for the Everett multiverse view--i.e. falsifies it or requires it to postulate a 'privileged observer' above the entire multiverse--AKA, God. This privileged observer would make quantum decisions consistent. These two knew papers I believe are going to be classics.

If quantum can't be used to describe our consciousness, then that ipso facto says that materialism is wrong--materialism being the view that there is nothing that can't be explained by physical law and matter. No doubt some new view will eventually arise challenging Frauchiger and Renner's conclusion because that is the nature of knowledge and philosophy, especially if someone has a vested interest in doing away with spiritual entities. And there is a lot of resistance among top level physicists to this kind of data.

 

[StevenMerten]

Neils Bohr

"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."

Verses​

Albert Einstein

"Id like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it."​

Niels Bohr is considered the 'Father of Quantum Theory". Neils Bohr is the scientist who discovered the electron rings on the atom. Neils Bohr pushed the concept that the universe does not exist without conscious observation (man) to observe it. Neils Bohr was not necessarily religious, but he certainly saw, through scientific proof, where electrons change course depending on whether or not man is looking at them, that there is no universe without conscious man to observe it. This is certainly a Creationist proof.

Albert Einstein hated the concept that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. Though Albert Einstein agreed with the scientific proof that electrons only change into particles when man is looking at them, he made it his goal to prove this wrong. 'Realism' was born out of Einsteins resistance to the scientific proof of how conscious observation causes electrons to change course. "Realism' basically states that we do not care what is going on at the sub-atomic, quantum level, we will just assume that the universe still exists when man is not looking at it. Of course, all mainstream colleges no longer even give courses in 'Realism' but simply accept the idea that the universe still exists when man is not looking at it, regardless of scientific proof indicating otherwise. 'Realism' is certainly an atheist scientist concept.

I am discussing this over in the CF Creationism Forum.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationism-quantum-mechanics-neils-bohr-vs-albert-einstein-realism-atheism.8100365/
​

Today, one hundred years later, all scientific experiments prove that Niels Bohr is Right, the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. Sorry Albert Einstein, still no proof of 'Realism'. The following PBS video discusses this.

 

[dad]

​

Today, one hundred years later, all scientific experiments prove that Niels Bohr is Right, the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. Sorry Albert Einstein, still no proof of 'Realism'. The following PBS video discusses this.

​

?? Name a few experiments that show something does not exist unless man looks at it. How about a squirrel, it it looks at something it would exist also? Now if you are talking about some photons here on earth in a lab we cannot draw big conclusions about life from that.

 

[StevenMerten]

?? Name a few experiments that show something does not exist unless man looks at it. How about a squirrel, it it looks at something it would exist also? Now if you are talking about some photons here on earth in a lab we cannot draw big conclusions about life from that.

Hello dad,
The EPR paradox experiments. In the 1980s, Albert Einstein's EPR parodox was proven, through 'many experiments', and the results pointed to Niels Bohr's 'Peek a Boo' universe, a universe that only exists when man is looking at it, is the way it is.

No these are not local, on earth only, experiments. These experiments involve entangled particles from across the universe.

Did you watch the video, dad?

 

[dad]

Hello dad,
The EPR paradox experiments. In the 1980s, Albert Einstein's EPR parodox was proven, through 'many experiments', and the results pointed to Niels Bohr's 'Peek a Boo' universe, a universe that only exists when man is looking at it, is the way it is.

No these are not local, on earth only, experiments. These experiments involve entangled particles from across the universe.

Did you watch the video, dad?

Can you cut to the chase and tell us what leads you to think that deep universe stuff only exists if man looks at it? From what I saw of the video it was talking about on earth.

 

[StevenMerten]

Can you cut to the chase and tell us what leads you to think that deep universe stuff only exists if man looks at it? From what I saw of the video it was talking about on earth.

Hello dad,
It is a video, not text.

What is your understanding of Albert Einstein's EPR paradox experiment? It was only successfully preformed in the 1980's, long after Einstein's death. Neils Bohr, father of Quantum Theory, stated that there is no universe without man observing the universe. Einstein accepted the science behind this statement, but spent a great deal of time trying to disprove the 'Peek A Boo', universe that does not exist without man looking at it, concept. After the successful EPR experiment was preformed, in the 1980s, the results went in favor of Neils Bohr's, 'there is no universe without man looking at it'.

Please explain how you understand Einstein's EPR experiment and what Einstein was hoping to prove or disprove, from it.

 

[dad]

Hello dad,
It is a video, not text.

What is your understanding of Albert Einstein's EPR paradox experiment? It was only successfully preformed in the 1980's, long after Einstein's death. Neils Bohr, father of Quantum Theory, stated that there is no universe without man observing the universe. Einstein accepted the science behind this statement, but spent a great deal of time trying to disprove the 'Peek A Boo', universe that does not exist without man looking at it, concept. After the successful EPR experiment was preformed, in the 1980s, the results went in favor of Neils Bohr's, 'there is no universe without man looking at it'.

Please explain how you understand Einstein's EPR experiment and what Einstein was hoping to prove or disprove, from it.

Wiki says this on the erp issue..

The EPR paper ends by saying:

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.


What I am getting at is that, yes things are entangled, but science doesn't really know how that all works. Science can work with it, and watch stuff entangled and etc....but you cannot try to man those rules that work on photons and other little bits to apply to cats or man. Neither can we say that the mere fact of man observing something makes it exist.

 

[Kaon]

Neils Bohr
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."​

Hello Legroom, You do understand that subatomic particles, are not particles making up the universe, unless a conscious observer, man (Adam) is looking at them, Right? You do understand that an electron can read the future, and knows if a conscious observer, man, is going to look at them in the future, and thus switch to form a particle in the past of physical time, Right?

Accord ding to Neils Bohr, pioneer of Quantum Theory (how subatomic particles behave), there is no reality without a conscious observer, Adam, looking at the universe. Are you questioning Neils Bohr?

Please visit:
Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism

I thought most people who took QM understand that every single state exists all at the same time until someone observes a particular observable "known" to be a part of a particular state. For example, operating kinetic and potential energy over a state should produce the observable called energy. Operating angular momentum on a stat e produces quanta of angular momentum.

It is when we observe a state that we "cause" it to collapse into a sum of probabilistic states based on our observation.


The Most High God is The Observer of all dimensions in creation - and beyond it. He is the One who sustains the entirety of it. For this reason, the stability of the universe, as it were, is curious to the quantum physicist because s/he knows the state of existence needs observation - otherwise you would need to assume all states exist. Nevertheless, the stability comes fro observation (some choirs of angels, but ultimately from the Most High God and Word of God Himself.)

The tree both makes no sound, and also makes a sound if no one is there to observe it when it falls. The cat is both alive, and dead if Schrodinger isn't there to see if the gas or air has dispersed into the box. It is difficult for people to wrap their heads around this, or the fact that time is an illusion, for example. I suspect this is because of academic dominance as a thought-form. It handicaps people from understanding their own reality around them by telling them how to think, and what is possible - and substantiating the paradigm through social and vocational pressure.

 

[Kaon]

Wiki says this on the erp issue..

The EPR paper ends by saying:

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.


What I am getting at is that, yes things are entangled, but science doesn't really know how that all works. Science can work with it, and watch stuff entangled and etc....but you cannot try to man those rules that work on photons and other little bits to apply to cats or man. Neither can we say that the mere fact of man observing something makes it exist.

Academia doesn't know how entanglement works, but there are people who have known what entanglement is, bi-location, etc. - and have exploited these. Astral projection, for example, is form of entanglement through tangent dimensions. What most people call magic is a form of energy manipulation from local entangled particles. Science today is rudimentary; there is much more (in much more eloquent language) than field theory and emergence.

There are people exploiting the ignorance of the population toward "spooky 'woo woo' things" misunderstood for their own gain. There are entities that capitalize on the psychological rigidity of academia in order to misinform people who pay to learn 10% of the science that has been used for several millennia. None of the things one can imagine is impossible, or impossible to learn. Anyone who knows the Most High God knows this.

 

[dad]

Academia doesn't know how entanglement works, but there are people who have known what entanglement is, bi-location, etc. - and have exploited these.

Yes, of course. Once man starts to see how stuff God created works, he starts to tinker around.

Astral projection, for example, is form of entanglement through tangent dimensions.

Says...who? A Guru?

What most people call magic is a form of energy manipulation from local entangled particles.

Since you can't do it and do not know how entanglement works maybe tone down the all encompassing claims.

Science today is rudimentary; there is much more (in much more eloquent language) than field theory and emergence.

There are people exploiting the ignorance of the population toward "spooky 'woo woo' things" misunderstood for their own gain. There are entities that capitalize on the psychological rigidity of academia in order to misinform people who pay to learn 10% of the science that has been used for several millennia. None of the things one can imagine is impossible, or impossible to learn. Anyone who knows the Most High God knows this.

Do those people you think are hiding under rocks exploiting stuff have black helicopters?

 

[Kaon]

Yes, of course. Once man starts to see how stuff God created works, he starts to tinker around.

Says...who? A Guru?

I did. Have you ever experienced spiritual warfare, or do you believe the spiritual world is a figurative thing? The spiritual world deals in what we call the fringes of QM as if it were Newtonian Mechanics.

Do you always need another human to vindicate your thinking, or were you just asking the question in general?

Since you can't do it and do not know how entanglement works maybe tone down the all encompassing claims.

I know how entanglement works, I have seen it in action, and there are other mathematicians and physicists that know how it works as well.

Do those people you think are hiding under rocks exploiting stuff have black helicopters?

They are exploiting us - our swiftness to scoff at things we have been told are woo woo, our ability to psychologically devour each other when we are in competition, and our myopia in general. We are the consumer; our minds are the product/commodity. Most of us don't realize it because it is easier to attack each other than an actual cause that can change the world.

But, let me be very clear: it is very easy to exploit human psychology because almost everyone has had years of introductory psychological programming, and feel no reason to change their thinking. That is where people learn how to treat each other according to the world - which is why the world is the way it is. Your response to my posts are a bit of a surprise - but not much; I understand where it comes from. Honestly, I thought someone as familiar with the Most High God as you claim would understand the crushing degeneracy of mathematics and physics as we know it - but also respect the elegance (also assuming you were beyond a bachelor level of study). That was my fault for assuming (or, was I right?)

We can always agree to disagree without the distracting exchanges. Or, I will just bow it; I have no problem looking as if I lost the debate or argument for the sake of sanity and sequence.