And awaaaaaaay we go!
Well, this is what I get for being gone for so long...
...I'll try to adress everybody's responses as best I can.
Kinsao said:
It's a real bummer when the reality your mind considers to be "real" doesn't co-incide with the one everyone else's minds seem to have selected...
Tell me about it!
Reiku said:
at one time the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was considered equally sound by the scientific community.
Our understanding of the universe is still very limited, so all physics can offer is a theory which best fits what we know at the time
Kinsao said:
I'm not saying that this supports - or disproves - the theory, but it's always worth remembering, in any case...
Interesting stuff.
I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say there...
...you're right, it doesn't prove the theory either way--only shows us that we can't be sure of anything.
(Not even what we can be sure of...)
yidaki said:
Wow, that's alot of text
It's an interesting theory.
But can't one argue something about the photon being affected by the absence of another photon, since the other hole is there I mean.
Or how about dark matter, perhaps dark matter is influenced by the holes aswell, making a gravity pull like a second photon.
Or perhaps some kind of string theory, that the universe has some kind of wave activity all the time, more or less, and that that is visible by shooting a photon through a hole.
I don't know, seems kind of far fetched to assume parallell universes just by this experiment.
I'm no physicist, but when you get to this level it's more like philosophy imho.
You're right, those are possible explanations. The thing is that scientists have a philosophy called
"Occam's Razor" that states: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"
So while the presence of dark matter in the lab
could explain it, Occam's Razor rules that out in favor of a simpler explanation.
It also doesn't help that I didn't explain the theory very well in my first post.
To be more clear, it's not so much that the photon is being affected by parralel-universe versions of itself, as that it's being affected by all the possible outcomes.
It's a very difficult concept to put into words, because it has different interpretations depending on whether you look at it from "inside" (our perspective) or "outside" (veiwing the system as a whole)
From an "inside" perspective, the photon becomes a wave of probabilities, which each interfere with each other, producing the interference pattern seen as the result of this experiment. (I'll explain this in more detail in a minute...)
From an "outside" perspective, all of what we call "reality" is in a similar probability wave state. So it's not that there are parralell universes, so much as there are a lot of probable universes, but none of them--including ours--are actually "real".
I guess you could picture it like this:
You roll a die across a table. While it's rolling, all six sides have a chance to come up, but none of them actually have yet. But if you could take a picture at just the right moment, you might see a certain side facing up, even though the die was still rolling.
Basicly, it's the same idea--the dice are still rolling, but our minds take a "snapshot" of all the probable realities and we act as though whatever we see in that snapshot is what's "real".
It's a hard concept to wrap your brain around...
Tsuyoiko said:
I find the idea of parallel universes to be utterly compelling. I would be more concerned if experimental evidence suggested that they don't exist.
It is a fascinating (if brain twisting) concept, although I can't really say wanting something to be true because it's interesting is unbiased.
Personally, I'd prefer that it wasn't true--one reality is complicated enough, I don't need any others to deal with. :relief:
Mycernius said:
I've heard of this experiment and actually seen it done on a Horizon programme on BBC2 once. There are two theories about the properties of light and why it causes this affect. One, as Reiku san pointed out, is that the experiment is being affected by alternate realities. The other is that light can exist as a wave and a paricle. As a particle it should only been seen through the one hole, but as a wave it can be seen through both holes. Because of its properties light can give rise to all sort of theories, even causing theoretical physicists to change their opinions on the nature of the universe. I think even Stephen Hawkings has changed his position on alternate universes and time travel. I'm going to have to re-read my quantum books, as I'm a little rusty on the subject.
Actually, what you discribed is actually the same theory--just discribed from an "outside" and then an "inside" perspective.
The origional experiment done in the 1800's led to the theory that light particles moved in waves, so the many different "lightwaves" making up a beam of light interfered with each other and caused the pattern produced in
Thomas Young's experiment.
Later, when technology had advanced to the point where it was possible to produce and detect indivitual light particles, the experiment was tried again, with just a single photon.
Since there was only one lightwave, but they still got an interferance pattern, the theory had to be revised.
The explanation proposed by the Probability Wave theory is that the photon didn't just become a wave of light, but a mathematical wave of probabilities, and it was the different probability waves (The photon being on the right side, the left side, in the middle, ect...) that interfered with each other.
As for sceintists changing their positions on different theories, I think it can be a good thing--as long as it's motivated by the evidence and not a personal bias or outside pressure.
I feel one of the saddest things to happen in science was when Einstien turned his back on quantum physics because of his
belief that "God does not play dice with the universe."
I guess not even the greatest scientific minds can be completely free of personal bias.
kumo said:
Continuing from the other thread...
I didn't call quantum physics a "postmodernist bullshit theory"; I said you purposedly distort what quantum physics is about to support your own postmodernist bullshit theory, which is made quite clear here:
I can only imagine this to be a gross misunderstanding of the object-observer interdependance concept. You seem to think that what we believe somehow determines the result (our "individual reality"), thus making everyone right. You are wrong:
- Although the observer and objects are interdependent in quantum physics, the laws of nature are just as absolute as they ever were. If you believe in magic, you'll be wrong in whatever "reality" you are.
- Our interaction indeed affects the nature of objects (mainly the wave/particle duality), but this has nothing to with our "cognitive construction." When a wave function collapses and an electron appears at a certain location, what we think about it is irrelevant. In other words, it's not what we decide or our beliefs that determines what happens; it's what we DO-- e.g. observe certain things.
Sorry Reiku, your postmodernist bullshit theory isn't supported by quantum physics, nor philosophy or anything else for that matter. It's still a relativist fallacy.
Two things:
1) Your statement that "If you believe in magic, you'll be
wrong in whatever "reality" you are." is a statement of personal opinion, not a scientific fact.
The existance of "magic" has not, to my knowlege, been seriously debated by the scientific community--just discarded as heresy. As such, science doesn't really have a position on the matter--at least not a
scientific one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in magic either--but I also don't believe in the Probability Wave therory. However, in my more rational moments I try to go by what reason and evidence shows to be true, not my own personal biases.
2) Apparently it is you who is not fully informed about quantum physics. Please pursue the informaion availible
here and rejoin the debate once you are up to speed, particularly on
Max Born's Probability Wave Interpretation of Quantum Theory
suirai said:
The first steps toward quantum physics were taken when Roentgen discovered X(?eX?f for unexplained) rays, and Becquerel started finding oddities in his experiments with uranium, both late in the 19th century.
I say that because just about that time many, if not most, scientists were stating that they had arrived at a fairly accurate understanding of the physical world. It?fs not the first time, nor will it be the last when scientists start closing their minds and shutting down their innate gift of testing perceived realities. One of the great gifts that humans possess is to explore, to test, to push beyond the imaginable. ?gWhat cannot be imagined cannot be done.?h are the words (or very close) that someone offered as advice. And so very, very true.
Anyway those ?goddities?h written about above got some to start taking a second look at our physical world and that second look has been going on for more than a hundred years.
If you are really interested in studying about this you should most definitely start with Alastair I. M. Rae?fs Quantum Mechanics. If you are still interested after finishing that then move on to some of Rae?fs other writings. Richard Feynman is a must read, too. The Character of Physical Law by Feynman would have to be at the very top of any study.
By the way, of all I?fve read in this thread, especially in the OP, something I think I read in the OP referred to a/the universe ?gsplitting?h. My view is that there have always been an infinite number of universes, which makes the ?guni?h in universe the greatest misnomer in our history. But multiverse doesn?ft cut it either. We need a completely different word, and a better word can help us better ?gimagine?h what we?fre studying. And what we are ultimately studying is the meaning of life.
Oh yes, I read somewhere in the thread that the OP seemed to contain religious overtones. You better believe that advances in the study of quantum physics and post-quantum physics are going to shake the very foundations of religious beliefs as we know them today. Yep, that revolution isn?ft so far off, but probably not in my lifetime, although the roots are there now. In fact, they always have been there. We just need to keep ?gdiscovering?h, keep ?gexploring?h, and not get complacent.
Just remember that everything revolves around our flat earth and you are on the right path to a fantastic journey of ?gdiscovery?h. Go for it! Humans need, absolutely have to have to survive, ?gdiscoverers?h.
.
Well, it's nice to see someone who understands the value of an open mind in the pursuit of knowlege.
As I mentioned before, I was not as clear as I could have been in my description of this theory. It is very hard for me to get such concepts from my brain to my mouth--or fingers, in this case--without messing up the translation a bit. :relief:
The idea that reality "splits" into parralel universes when more than one outcome is possible is a different theory from the one I am trying to explain here, and in hindsight, I shouldn't have mentioned it. (So as to avoid confusion on an already mind-boggling subject.)
The probablility wave theory is more along the lines of your belief that there has "always been an infinite number of universes", except that it proposes that they are possible universes, not actual ones--for all the sense that distinction makes.
Mamoru-kun said:
And what if the quantum fluctuations ("emptyness fluctuation" in French, don't know if it's the correct translation in English), being the cause of the single photon beam strange behaviors (see first post), wasn't due to "other universes" (in which I personally don't believe), but to the other dimensions fluctuations? Those branes (once again, I'm not sure that it's the correct English translation of the French "cords theory" term), which we can't detect with our own sense (by definition), nor by our actual technology. Why an energy fluctuation in one of those ?gcords?h couldn?ft create a particle in ?gour?h dimensions during a small amount of time, taking into account that energy and mass are linked, and thus that the ?gcreated from nowhere?h particle would have interfered with the photon beam? It would be for me much more "acceptable" than the idea of an infinity of universe, with an infinity * 10 exp X number of living beings
Well, it's importaint to remember that the stated purpose of science is to find the
correct explanations, not the most acceptable ones.
I personally don't find the Probability Wave theory very acceptable, but it seems to be the proverbial "simplest explanation which fits all the evidence", so I'm stuck with it for now.
I could propose the existance of other dimensions, superstring fluctuations ("Superstring" is the english term), particles that form out of nowhere, or even divine intervention to explain the results of that experiment, but
"Occam's Razor" cuts such speculations to pieces.
Not that Occam's Razor is nessecarily correct, but again--it's the best thing we have to go on.
mad pierrot said:
I mean, why can't light just make a decision?
First it's a particle, then a wave, then a particle again...
Make up your mind, damnit!
Well, according to the probability wave theory--it did make up it's mind:
It's a wave, and so is everything else.
Mad Pierrot said:
All jokes aside, I can only imagine this thread going downhill. On the other hand, so many people pretending to have deep knowledge on this subject should make for some interesting posts.
Kind of reminds me of this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...f=pd_bbs_1/102-1924780-8478529?_encoding=UTF8
Looks like a fun read.
I'm really hoping this thread won't go straight down the toilet--and it does seem to have managed to bounce off the rim a few times already, so I guess there's hope--but I agree that no matter what, it's going to be interesting.
Mamoru-kun said:
I'm not saying that there is matter which is not discovered yet. Perhaps it?fs the case, perhaps not, I don?ft have an opinion about it.
But let's think about additional dimensions which could not be detected by our senses: if we postulate that such dimensions exist, our senses cannot "detect" them (as a cartoon character -cannot- detect the 3rd dimension)?celse we would have already noticed/recognized them (that?fs another postulate, but which seems to me acceptable too). Human beings being what they are, it takes a loooong time to access theory of things which we can't feel/detect (see how long took the humanity to reach the relativity theory, the quantum theory,...). So that also explains, for me, why we cannot detect them with our technology yet (if you want, because we haven't thought in the -correct- direction yet).
Now let's speak about a particle: take my cartoon example again. He is living in his 2D world, and obviously don't know the presence of the cartoonist, because he evolves in another set of dimensions (but it is still the same world, the same universe, I want to point it!). If there is a photon in the 2D world (let's say XY world), as soon as the photon takes its way along the Z axis (so leaving the sheet of paper), it disappears from the cartoon character?fs view. The photon is still there, being visible by the cartoonist only now (once again, it?fs a basic point of view, just an idealistic example).
So for me, it?fs not incredible to believe that there is other dimensions which could interact with our usual 3 dimensions that way (but probably only at a very small scale. Or those dimensions are very small, if you prefer). And once again, in -dimensions-, I don?ft speak about other -spaces- where we could find other planets, or things like that. It's just more like dimensions as in a n-dimensions tables, containing nothing else than our usual world, but with additional perspectives?c
It's an interesting concept, and certainly not as brain-violating as the "this floating world is a dream" proposed by the Probability Wave theory--but again,
"Occam's Razor".
It may be easier for
us to make up something new to explain things, but it makes more sense to reassess our previous assumptions in light of the new evidence than to make up evidence to support our existing beliefs.
Mike Cash said:
There once was a girl named Bright
Whose speed was faster than light
She started out one day, in a relative way
And returned the previous night.
There was a young fencer named Fisk
Whose thrust was exceedingly brisk
So fast was his action
That the Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his raipier to a disk
Who says learning Physics can't be fun?
Mamoru-kun said:
With all due respect, would it be possible to keep such "arguements" in PM mode only? This thread is (or can become) a very interesting one, so...please :relief:
Good idea. After all, accusing people of being part of a cult and then dismissing their arguments as superstition really has no place in a scientific discussion.
Even if you could prove their god didn't exist, they wouldn't listen...
...even if they could prove their god did exist, you wouldn't listen.
A pointless waste of time, to challenge a person's core beliefs about the universe, I'd like to say "that's why I follow the evidence, not just beliefs", but even trusting that what I see and hear is real is an act of faith--how do I know I'm not dreaming?
So I guess my religion is "Deductive Reasoning" and my god is "Evidence"--too bad he's so unreliable.
Mamoru-kun said:
Well Bossel, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "religion" (I was not refering to any God things, if by mistake it's what my post let people think), but yes indeed, my posts were only "sience fiction". I'm not a scientist, and just have sciences bases, so not much to construct with. If I have well understood, you are some kind of physicist with deep understanding of science things, so I can understand your point of view, but well, would you mind to let some place in this thread for people, like me, who like to dream and do "strange hypothesis"?
I don't want to be rude, but I really was hoping not to see this thread becoming one more "you're wrong because I'm right and here is the prove" thread :relief:
Actually, I think he was referring to me, Mamoru-kun.
