Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

[RealityCheck01]

How was it tested?

By making predictions and seeing that the experimental results match leading to the "most accurately tested theory of physics ever"
Precision tests of QED

The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In reality.. I don't even think that they know for sure what the inside of the earth is like..

In reality we do not have to drill through the crust of the Earth to have a good idea what is inside the Earth.
Volcanoes give us samples of the upper depths. Seismology tells us about the deeper structure of the Earth. We can experiment with rock to see its properties under the interior temperatures and pressures.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Also, you are again correct that I was in error mentioning deductive reasoning when clearly I should have said inductive reasoning.

1. There is no proof in science.
   
2. There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that give the strong existence of dark matter. Simply put, we apply the laws of physics that are known to work and find that there is more matter than visible matter. On the other hand, changing the laws of physics does not work.
   
3. Deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning are not calculations using physics.
4. Mainstream physicists are the people who came up with the QM interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation is named after a conference of mainstream physicists in Copenhagen.
5. There are no "theories to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation". There are alternative interpretations.
6. The Copenhagen Interpretation is not QFT.
7. Scientific experiments on natural phenomena are not evidence for supernatural phenomena. Supernatural means cannot explained by the laws of nature, i.e. physics.

Tests of QM:
Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms

Our general logic would assume that the object is either wave-like or particle-like by its very nature, and our measurements will have nothing to do with the answer. But quantum theory predicts that the result all depends on how the object is measured at the end of its journey. And that's exactly what a team from the Australian National University has now found.

Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is actually several thought experiments in quantum physics, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, with the most prominent among them appearing in 1978 and 1984.[1] These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle until measured.[2]

This is a fundamental property of QM: Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia

In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result[1][2][3] of quantum mechanics, also referred to as principle of complementarity. It holds that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With regard to the big bang, and the idea that it came from a single point - we don't know. A volume the size of the observable universe would have been very small (smaller than a proton?), but the universe is at least 250x bigger than what we can observe, and might be infinite in extent. If it is infinite, it could have been infinite at the big bang (an infinite extent of high density, highly energetic stuff), or - according to Marcus du Sautoy - it could have been a single point (he shows how, mathematically, reversing the expansion, a volume of any radius can shrink to zero at time=0). At extremely small scales, quantum effects dominate, so there would probably be some quantum limit on how small or dense the initial state could be.

There was also a suggestion that the expansion of the universe would result in galaxies moving very fast and so gaining mass (which would be 'relativistic' mass - a term not used much these days). As I understand it, this does not occur, as the galaxies don't actually move through space, the space they're in expands, carrying them apart.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is a fundamental property of QM: Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia

In physics, complementarity is both a theoretical and an experimental result[1][2][3] of quantum mechanics, also referred to as principle of complementarity. It holds that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously.

I've heard it said that objects don't really have the precise complementary properties attributed to them; they're, in a sense, artefacts of the measuring process...

 

[Jon Osterman]

How was it tested?

Mainly using particle colliders like the LHC in Geneva. But actually, the best tested number is the electic dipole of the electron which is predected to an astonishing accuracy and then measured to an also astonishing accuracy and found to agree.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

This is emphatically wrong given the Copenhagen Interpretation is still the preferred option in both Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theories.

Sjastro, I have no dispute with science's validity for Quantum Field Theory. I was referring to the Observation Principle and properties associated with matter in an observation as being a problem for quantum science. As you know Heisenberg and others amended their findings to exclude a human observer from the implications of this principle and specified observation instruments and lab criteria to avoid any suggestion on nonexistence, conceding only to some state of reduction instead.
My own view is that conscious observation is the only way properties associated with matter can exist as real physical identity, and that view comes from the original implications of the Observation Principle, and other QM findings, not the least of which include Complimentarity and Entanglement. Alan Aspect and most recently John Wheeler have done experiments that further confirm this. Last but most convincing of all for me is Scripture that these aspects of QM conform to. It is my conviction all of reality, including this physical appearing one is created by God's Consciousness (Word), and being made in His Image have our own version of His Consciousness to direct as we choose (free will). Look at what we do with it! It would take a lot more space to fully explain all this then is allowed for here, but the point I am asking others to consider is that ultimately our own "wisdom" falls far short of true wisdom, and that all our creations, physical discoveries, and efforts have inherent unintended consequences with which we perpetually just dig a deeper and deeper hole in terms of creating the demise of this world and all it's inhabitants, all in the name of progress! How can we call all we are discovering progress, when what we actually are discovering is that we know less about reality now then ever before specifically because we have gained so much knowledge! How's that for a paradox? Every answer we discover inherently generates multiple new questions. Many already suspect that consciousness is the true foundation of this world, and others will eventually realize it as well. It is the one attribute we have the most experience with, yet it is also the thing we know the least about! Yes, we know how to use it, but we know nothing about what it actually is, how it works, or where it comes from. Instead we come up with some "theory" that it is an emergent part of the brain. A brain 100% full with the properties associated with matter. As Schrodinger stated,“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Others find this statement irrelevant. I find it the most significant conclusion derived from investigating QM. That Max Planck concurs is not coincidence to me. Peace Brother

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning are not calculations using physics.

Hello RealityCheck01. I never indicated these were based on Physics calculations. Are you implying deductive and inductive reasoning is not used by physicists? Of course they are.

Mainstream physicists are the people who came up with the QM interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation is named after a conference of mainstream physicists in Copenhagen.

Again, who else did you think I thought attended these conferences?

There are no "theories to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation". There are alternative interpretations.

Got me on this one. However, is not an alternate version's purpose to discredit, invalidate or other wise object to points of the original interpretation?

The Copenhagen Interpretation is not QFT.

If you read my post as if I implied QFT was part of the Copenhagen interpretation, I either worded it poorly or you misunderstood.

Scientific experiments on natural phenomena are not evidence for supernatural phenomena. Supernatural means cannot explained by the laws of nature, i.e. physics.

Exactly my point. This will always be a problem for science as well because the supernatural (phenomenon independent of the laws of nature that influence those laws).

Tests of QM:
Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
Date:
May 27, 2015
Source:
Australian National University
Summary:
The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. The group reversed Wheeler's original experiment, and used helium atoms scattered by light.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I never indicated these were based on Physics calculations.

The real world fact is that the evidence for dark matter is physics calculations: Observational evidence for dark matter. Thus your statement that they are not physics calculations is wrong.

You misunderstood: Science does not explain things that science cannot explain and by definition that excludes the supernatural from science.

That QM is "weird" has been known for about a century. Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness merely confirms it

 

[RealityCheck01]

I was referring to the Observation Principle...

You were referring to a so far not sourced "Observation Principle". As I asked before "A source or two would be appreciated" for the Observation Principle.

Physics never excludes observers, human or otherwise.

Consciousness has several scientific explanations.

The outdated statements of dead non-experts does not mean much. Schrodinger and Planck are dead physicists, not current neuroscientists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sjastro, I have no dispute with science's validity for Quantum Field Theory. I was referring to the Observation Principle and properties associated with matter in an observation as being a problem for quantum science. As you know Heisenberg and others amended their findings to exclude a human observer from the implications of this principle and specified observation instruments and lab criteria to avoid any suggestion on nonexistence, conceding only to some state of reduction instead.
My own view is that conscious observation is the only way properties associated with matter can exist as real physical identity, and that view comes from the original implications of the Observation Principle, and other QM findings, not the least of which include Complimentarity and Entanglement.

I assume that when you say 'the Observation Principle', you're referring to the observer effect, the concept that the process of observation or measurement necessarily influences the system being measured.

As I understand it, the observer effect does occur (and has an interesting twist where quantum events are concerned, resulting in oddities like the quantum zeno effect), but it's generally accepted that a quantum measurement or observation is not directly related to consciousness, but occurs whenever quantum systems interact such that it leads to the quantum decoherence of the relevant system; i.e. conscious entities may set up specific observation or measurement contexts and examine what happens as a result of the interaction, but it's just one example of a process that happens all the time in the world. That it's still called 'observation' or 'measurement' is a hang-over from 80 years of thought and lab experiments.

It's complicated, I may not have the explanation precisely correct.

 

[JacksBratt]

In reality we do not have to drill through the crust of the Earth to have a good idea what is inside the Earth.
Volcanoes give us samples of the upper depths. Seismology tells us about the deeper structure of the Earth. We can experiment with rock to see its properties under the interior temperatures and pressures.

It's all still assumptions. Yes, there is lava underground. Water, minerals.. but beyond that.. how far can we send sounds and radio waves under ground.... Do you know how massive this planet is?

It's all speculation and matters little.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

You misunderstood: Science does not explain things that science cannot explain and by definition that excludes the supernatural from science.

Hello RealityCheck01.

You want references. I already gave references and you determined they were irrelevant. I completely understand why. You want me to explain myself in terms of your convictions; what you believe is true and factual according to the academia you learned from. For you, my convictions are flawed and absolutely irrelevant, so why ask me for more references? This simply makes no sense.

I already pointed out I have no expectation of changing your convictions any more then you can change mine. What is the point of pursing this further then? How can I provide references that support my view that are valid in your eyes? I wish I knew!. I am astonished by your comments regarding Schrodinger and Planck, as being irrelevant because they are dead, and not neurocientists! If this is a measure of what you find irrelevant, I'm afraid there is nothing we can communicate about. You want references? I do not have any acceptable to you. My apology.
Now, all this is my own fault, because in previous attempts to address your comments to my posts I tried responding in terms I thought you would relate to. Major failure on my part, so my apology for that too. I had no intention of trying to bait you, and in fact only wound up contradicting myself and placing my size 11's in my mouth (actually keyboard). So, the hole I have been digging for myself in my response to your comments ends here. Feel free to continue your critique of my posts, but do not expect me to reply with anything you would consider relevant to you!
Lastly, I do commend you on your command what you have learned scientifically.
I just find it mostly irrelevant to the true nature of reality! Go figure. ))
Cheers

 

[RockyMidnight1]

It's complicated, I may not have the explanation precisely correct.

Hello FrumiousBandersnatch.
That's quite the handle! Yes, it is complicated, yet when certain elements of our experience are put into perspective, is quite simple as well, so simple in fact that this is what prevents us from seeing the obvious IMHO. Your explanation is fine, since this is territory that often defies explanation. When I refer to an observer, I am thinking in terms of anything that has self awareness. Based on the evidence I have of my own sensory transduction and recognition of what these actually tell me I cannot avoid concluding the physical reality we all know and participate in is simply not what it appears to be and self awareness is inherent in every physical appearing identity we know, and those we have yet to discover. When something is not what it appears to it is an illusion. This reality monopolizes on illusions. It's not just sensory function of our physical identities that indicate this, as they are a part of the illusion. It is also findings of science, and specifically Quantum Mechanics, that imply that matter and energy, space and time, and therefore the physical experiences we participate in, including the experience of ourselves, do not actually exist as physical. Now obviously this opens up a whole truck load of worms, not just a can because it is what we refer to as counter intuitive to a degree that would seem beyond comprehension. In fact there are aspects to it that are beyond our ability to know, but I believe we have enough evidence to at least recognize and confirm this reality's illusory foundation.
As to why it is an illusion, and how the illusion is manifested as appearing physically real places us in another framework of thought entirely. For me it is Biblical, and it is the attributes of God that creates the illusion we experience as real for purposes known better to Him, but also for us to experience in real ways how we deny His Will in preference to our own, and how that conflict is materialized in terms of results. You do not have to comment on this if it makes you more comfortable not to. I understand where you are coming from regarding theist beliefs. Been there and have done that myself years ago.
Cheers

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When I refer to an observer, I am thinking in terms of anything that has self awareness.

Yes, I could see that. I was just making it clear that a self-aware observer is not necessary for a quantum 'observation' or 'measurement' to occur.

Based on the evidence I have of my own sensory transduction and recognition of what these actually tell me I cannot avoid concluding the physical reality we all know and participate in is simply not what it appears to be and self awareness is inherent in every physical appearing identity we know, and those we have yet to discover.

Yes, quite a few people believe that based on similar grounds. I think it's called panpsychism. The available scientific evidence suggests that individual perception, introspection, and intuition is an unreliable guide to the deeper aspects of reality (and many superficial ones); for example, neuroscience has a substantial history of demonstrating that what individuals feel or think is the case in various situations is mistaken.

From a systems information point of view, sentient self-awareness, of the kind we attribute to higher animals and experience ourselves, requires some internal informational representation of the self, which implies information storage and processing capabilities, e.g. some kind of brain - and we find such mappings in the brains of creatures that display behaviours we judge self-aware. Outside of these creatures, the meaning of sentient awareness becomes more ambiguous - plants are aware, in the simple sense of being responsive to their environment, and have quite complex responses, including signalling other plants, but there's no good reason to think they're sentient. Inanimate objects simply don't have the necessary capabilities (although some AIs are already self-aware in a crude sense, and could, in principle, be made sentient).

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Yes, I could see that. I was just making it clear that a self-aware observer is not necessary for a quantum 'observation' or 'measurement' to occur.

Agreed. As for pansychism, I am aware of this concept. As previously stated, I believe
everything has conscious awareness (is able to observe according to it's own nature and place in relation to all other conscious awareness it creates experience with) but again strictly in conjunction with the Biblical attributes of God, especially the Omnipresence of God, which to me is reflected in what QM refers to as Entanglement and which I believe is not limited to Quantum experience, but permeates every level of reality and all identities that exist, hence the consistency of a physical illusion appearing as if no illusion existed.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".

How true that is. It's even Biblical. Wouldn't it be great if we all had the ability to avoid self deception! I'm afraid it is an inherent part of the human condition though, for some some of the "time, and others most of the time, and others still all of the time! Who is who?
This reminds me of Einstein's comment about two things with out limit, the universe and our stupidity, and he wasn't sure about the universe! (Sorry RealityCheck01, seems I just can't avoid quoting dead folks )
Cheers!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's all still assumptions....

You obviously did not read my post or the cited science so:
17 May 2018 JacksBratt: An ignorant statement that we have to drill through the Earth's crust to know what is under it.

18 May 2018 JacksBratt: "how far can we send sounds and radio waves under ground" ignorance.
It is not usually "we". Earthquakes send waves through the Earth. I suspect that some semiology was done using underground nuclear tests.

18 May 2018 JacksBratt: An irrelevant "Do you know how massive this planet is" question.

18 May 2018 JacksBratt: A "It's all speculation" lie because semiology, etc. are evidence-based science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...I completely understand why.

My "conviction" is that your posts contain ignorance about the definitions of words such as science and supernatural, some ignorance about science, a couple of irrelevant links and irrelevant, outdated quotes.

1. There is no proof in science.
   
2. There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that give the strong existence of dark matter. Simply put, we apply the laws of physics that are known to work and find that there is more matter than visible matter. On the other hand, changing the laws of physics does not work.
   
3. The evidence for dark matter is established by calculations using physics, not deductive or inductive reasoning.
4. Scientific experiments on natural phenomena are not evidence for supernatural phenomena. By definition, supernatural phenomena cannot explained by the laws of nature, i.e. physics.
5. A source giving more evidence for the existence of dark matter does not support "It has not been proven to exist".
6. Citations of scientific QM experiments confirming QM are irrelevant to anything supernatural.
7. Planck and Schrodinger did not study consciousness - their amateur opinion is irrelevant.
8. Planck died on 4 October 1947. Schrodinger died on 4 January 1961. That is before the start of the scientific, mainstreamstudy of consciousness in about 1975.
   What is worse is having quotes from 1931 in interviews !

You can change my "conviction" by showing that I am mistaken, e.g. giving sources that state the meaning of supernatural = explained by science. Maybe cite the papers on consciousness by Planck or Schrodinger ?

 

[RockyMidnight1]

You can change my "convictions".....

Why would I want to change your convictions? Why do you insist on repeating yourself?
It is already obvious you cannot understand what I wrote so there is no point in my further attempts to clarify for you. You show no interest at all in being open to anything outside your idea of intellect. Do you need me to write "i'm wrong, you're right"? Will that set you free? There it is! My gift to you!
Cheers

 

[RockyMidnight1]

My "conviction" is that your posts contain ignorance about the definitions of words such as science and supernatural, some ignorance about science, a couple of irrelevant links and irrelevant, outdated quotes.

There is no doubt in my mind that I am ignorant of many things RealtyCheck; it's my motivation to learn. As for any ignorance you perceive specifically regarding my definitions of words and "irrelevant" outdated quotes , who are you to judge me? Outdated? Really? When are you planning the book burning? By your own definition outdated includes the vast majority of human thought! .
Again, why the repetition of the same posts from you? You think they will produce a different result from me? Here's a reference to an outdated quote for you; you are familiar with what Einstein said about this right?
Enough OK? You are just wasting both our "time". You're oil and I'm water, or visa versa as you prefer. Either way they simply do not mix!
Cheers