In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

Oniw17 said: ↑

You cannot get something from nothing...so something alway had to exist....even before observers. Matter has always existed, conscious life hasn't.

The planet would still exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place, since at some point, we didn't exist. The planet has to be here before the life. That's what he was saying.
Click to expand...

Who says observation is restricted to matter? Atoms are not matter but atoms are self aware through organization. Matter is not real, matter is just energy organized in a specific way.

What this means is, observation, and self awareness, may not be limited to living matter.
You are correct this connect be proven, but artificial intelligence and robotics will eventually reach a singularity point, and we will find out one way or the other.

Secondly, atoms do have some level of awareness, even if it's limited to action and reaction, this awareness allows for atoms to organize into molecular structures that form the human body in the first place. So what we are talking about here is self aware energy being the universe. We are not talking about living matter being the only expression of self awareness or even the first expression of it. We are saying awareness is the universe itself and that before observation existed there was nothing, no big bang, no matter, absolutely no 3d universe because the 3d universe came into existence when the first set of eyes in the universe observed it into existence.

Do you really believe the universe had this dimension before there was self aware energy to percieve it? How exactly could the dimension have been created if there were absolutely no awareness in the universe? The 3rd dimension is an illusion that depends on the existence of awareness on the 2nd dimension and first dimension. The human body is made up of all these dimensions and there is awareness on all levels, your cells are aware, and the atoms that make up your cells are aware. This is not the same thing as alive, because these cells in your body have a very limited awareness. Atoms even more limited, but they are aware enough to organize.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

Correct a brick does not have eyes... but is nonetheless an observer in its environment. It has relationships with its surroundings. Send an gaggle of superimposed electrons to a brick and that relationship will collapse them.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a brick if there is no observer to look at it, measure it, calculate it, and interpret the information and give it a definition "brick". The brick only exists because it was observed into existence.

The universe is filled with junk information. Junk information like that brick, which is junk because it is now aware of itself. That which is not aware of itself does not exist. The universe is aware of itself, through us, and the other self aware beings, and it is we who are existence. When the universe ceases being aware of itself, the universe no longer exists.

I don't know how you can argue for the existence of a universe which cannot be observed, yet you don't believe in God. If you believe the universe is beyond definition, and beyond the scope of existence itself, and beyond observation, and is just this thing which exists outside the scope of reality, how is it any different than believing in heaven, or believing in angels? Or believing in God or the Devil? Or believing in Gods? Or believing the universe itself is God and you are some sorta servant?

It's really simple, the universe only exists because of perception/self awareness. Perception created the 3rd dimension, the material universe is not real, it's a trick of perception. If you had the vision of a microscope you'd be able to zoom in and see the real universe. You'd see that the real universe depends more on size than on shape. You'd see that there are particles that can be in two places at once. You'd see that time travel, and quantum entanglement are possible. You'd begin to understand that the 3d exists only due to our perception, and this is proven by the fact that when you zoom out again suddenly everything is solid, but if you zoom in and go small enough everything is liquid, and suddenly you reach a timeless state.

So in reality, if you go small enough, you do reach a timeless non-local state. In that state, there is no beginning or end. The big bang created the 3rd dimension, and the so called laws of physics. But the laws of physics only exist because atoms follow certain rules. When you change the spin of particles it actually causes quantum entanglement so these rules can be changed it seems by very small changes.

The proof backing up my claim can be seen in the two slit paradox.

The two slit paradox
This experiment is fundamental to all of modern physics. Feynman, Nobel prize winner in physics, has stated that no physicist understands this experiment, and that it cannot be explained by any classical means. The reason is that it cannot be monocularly comprehended, i.e., the first three laws of logic cannot explain it. The fourth law can and does.
In the experiment, electrons are emitted from a source and travel past a doubly-slit wall region on their way to a screen. The apparatus is shielded against light. If one believes that the emitted electron is a little three-dimensional particle, much like a tiny baseball, then it should go through one of the slits and not the other. It would then hit the screen at one of the two spots indicated as the expected distribution, with a little scatter from those that chip the edge of the slit a bit. Electrons which do not hit the holes but strike the wall are absorbed.
We do not get this expected pattern. Instead, the pattern is essentially the same as the one we would get if each electron were a wavefront passing through both slits at once. However, each electron still strikes the screen in only one point; the distribution of these points fits the actual distribution pattern shown.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This stunned the physicists. They did not believe it at first, so they set up a photon gun and hit every electron with a photon as it left the emitter source and started over toward the two-slit region. That is, they determined precisely when a little electron was on the way, and the fact that it was like a tiny baseball and in just one place. And this time the electron only went through a single slit, and it gave the expected pattern after all. And when the experiment was repeated and only a fraction of the electrons were hit with photons, then a mixture of the two patterns emerged.
It is simple to describe the results mathematically, but no one has understood why things happen as they do in this experiment. The principle of complementarity evades the issue. This principle is simply a monocular statement dealing with one aspect of the problem at a time, with the determined, exclusive, monocular past only. It does not apply to the present or to the future. If we think in terms of the present, then the third law of logic is violated and the fourth law applies. The two states, two-dimensional wave and three-dimensional corpuscular, both exist simultaneously but nonexclusively in the present. Thus in physics terms, the entity becomes nonobjective (nonspatial), probabilistic and undetermined, and this is automatically a wave concept, i.e., since waves are not confined to one place and determined or localized, they may exist in the nonconfined, non localized present.
Note that photon interaction must be excluded whenever the so-called quantum effect is exhibited. If photon interaction is invoked, classical reality emerges. Photon interaction creates classical objectivity. Photon interaction is a time-differentiating operator imposed on L3T four-space. Specifically, since light carries time, photon emission from an entity strips away T from the L3T nonobjective entity, converting it to an L3 or spatial object.
The very concept of an object comes from primitive perception's one-to-one correspondence with photon interaction. After photon interaction, the first three laws of logic apply to an entity. Before photon interaction occurs, the fourth law applies. In the fourth-law state, the time portion of an entity can interact with any number of time portions of other fourth-law entities if the time aspects of all of them coincide.
A free electron born and released at the emitter is four-dimensional ( L3T) until it is struck by a photon, after which it is three-dimensional (L3 ). When the wavelength of electron and slits is specified, we have actually specified the time interval stripped out of a ΔEΔT quantum in each quantum of fundamental change occurring. Perfect time synchronization accomplishes or constitutes orthogonal rotation. So if the length (width) dimension of each slit is very close to the wavelength of the electron, the time aspects of both slits will interact with the time aspect of the fourth-state electron if all three are brought into time phase simultaneously. If the slits are made much larger, this interaction will not occur.
When the electron interacts with both slits timewise, this will constitute a part of the past history of the electron to all future interactions or interaction possibilities. But since the interaction with the two-slits was not in the past (i.e., selected or determined), then that interaction itself is a part of the present and future probabilities chain. In physics, probabilities propagate forward in time with absolute causality until a monocular selection is made. Thus the fourth-law interaction is propagated forward with absolute causality and significantly affects any future interactions. And apparently vice-versa. John Wheeler has just shown that, in at least one sense, whether or not the emitted particle in the two-slit experiment has interacted with one or both slits can be selected after it has occurred. As is well known, the pattern of projection forward of this fourth-law interaction may be quite simply calculated from ordinary trigonometry. For an excellent discussion of the two-slit experiment, see Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. I (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Calif., 1963), pp. 37 -1 and 37 -12.
When the electron hits the screen, it encounters a region of varying time oscillations of the orbital electrons around the individual atoms comprising the screen.
Thus the exact location of the orbital electron in the screen which will first precisely time-synchronize with the electron wavelength approaching the screen in four-law form will vary. Thus the place where the electron hits the screen is variably selected along the screen. The time distribution pattern of the approaching electron is recovered when the time distribution of the number of electron hits per screen length is plotted.
So one can build gadgets to cause four-law entities to multiply and interact simultaneously in time, even though the entities are normally thought of as being in different spatial locations when in the three-law state. And one can deliberately select the type of interaction to occur, four-law or three-law, simply by controlling photon interaction. The two-slit apparatus itself is a paranormal, psychotronic de vice.
This is the explanation of the two-slit experiment, which, according to Nobel prizewinner Richard Feynman, no one understands and which, according also to Dr. Feynman, contains the total mystery of quantum mechanics and the only mystery of quantum mechanics. The reason the two-slit experiment has not been understood is that the answer to the paradox was not present in the first three laws of logic. It requires the addition of the fourth law to explain the experiment.
And all fundamental particles - photons, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. - exhibit the same behavior. So things, nothings if you will, can be processed in the multiplistic two-states-identified-as-one-so-no-single-exclusive state, as virtual and unobserved entities. In the multiplistic state they can be amplified, recorded, put onto tape, modulated onto RF signals, etc. And by our ordinary, objective, three- law science nothing is processed. And nothing indeed is what is there - a very special, structured, detailed, virtual set of nonexclusive, hidden-variable nonthings that is part of the new reality existing in the framework of the new four-law logic. In fact, this processable, structurable, nonobjective reality exists outside objective, three-law spacetime and is the basis for all psychotronic phenomena.
To our present monocular detection devices and monocular theory, such multiple-state entities are unobserved and hence are zeroes. They are pure vacuum, pure space, pure nothing, pure emptiness. But they are very real indeed, and they do physically exist, but multiocularly rather than monocularly.
The importance of the time interaction in explaining the two-slit experiment was noted as early as 1957 by Charles Musés in his introduction to Jerome Rothstein's Communication, Organization, and Science (Falcon's Wing Press, Indian Hills, Colorado, 1958). Musés pointed out that the celebrated wave-particle paradox remains a paradox only so long as the chronotopological phases of the phenomena are left unrealized in the analysis. The entire foreword by Musés is a remarkable document that analyzes the structure of time itself.
Click to expand...

The next experiment which helps make my case is

Stern and Gerlach's magnets

Introduction

This page summarises summarises the classic Stern-Gerlach experiment on "spin" and extends the treatment to a discussion of correlation experiments. As is often the case, I build up maximum complexity as I examine the experimental details, and then hide them in a 'box'. This time the box will turn out to be literal.

Here we concentrate on electrons, which have only two spin-states. We also mention photons, which also have two spin-states. The approach is largely based on one by Feynman which he used for objects with three spin states: see R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol III, Chapter 5 for this discussion.
Classical Charged Spinning Objects

We begin by considering a macroscopic charged ball that is thrown between the poles of a magnet. If the ball is not spinning, a "knuckleball" to a baseball fan, it will not be deflected. However, if it is spinning it will be deflected as shown:

We ignore:

* The weird shape of the magnet pole pieces.
* The fact that there will be horizontal deflections. These can be cancelled by putting an electric field perpendicular to the plane of the ball's trajectory.

A Flash animation of this case has been prepared. It may be viewed by clicking here.

For the case shown above, the figure to the right shows the spin of the charge.

We shall call this orientation "spin up" since it is deflected up by the magnets.

The total amount of deflection is a function of

* The total amount and distribution of electric charge on the ball.
* The orientation and rate of spin. As the rate of spin increases, so does the deflection. As the axis of the spin becomes more vertical, that amount of deflection also increases.

By contrast a "spin down" electron would have its spin oriented as shown to the left:

Such an object is deflected down by the magnets.

All of the above is just classical 19th century electricity and magnetism.
The Spin of the Electron

An "electron gun" produces a beam of electrons. Further information may be found here.

If the beam from the electron gun is directed to the magnets, as shown to the right, the beam is split into two parts. One half of the electrons in the beam are deflected up, the other half were deflected down. The amount of deflection up or down is exactly the same magnitude. Whether an individual electron is deflected up or down appears to be random.

Stern and Gerlach did a version of this experiment in 1922.

This is very mysterious. It seems that the "spin" of electrons comes in only two states. If we assume, correctly, that the rate of spin, total charge, and charge distribution of all electrons is the same, then evidently the magnitude of the angle the spin axis makes with the horizontal is the same for all electrons. For some electrons, the spin axis is what we are calling "spin up", for others "spin down".

You should beware of the term "spin." If one uses the "classical radius of the electron" and the known total angular momentum of the electron, it is easy to calculate that a point on the equator of the electron is moving at about 137 times the speed of light! Thus, although we will continue to use the word "spin" it is really a shorthand for "intrinsic angular momentum."
Building a Spin Filter

As promised at the beginning, we now make the situation a bit more complex. Consider the arrangement shown to the right:

Note that the polarity of the middle longer magnet is reversed from the other two. We have also drawn the path of a "spin up" object. When the object emerges from the magnets it is going the same direction as before it entered them with the same speed.

A Flash animation of this case may be viewed by clicking here.

The path of a "spin down" object is:

For a beam of electrons, one-half will go follow the upper path while and other half will follow the lower path:

Finally, we imagine putting a small block of lead in the path of the "spin down" electrons.

Here, one-half of the incident beam, the spin-down electrons, will be stopped inside the apparatus, while all the spin-up electrons will emerge in the same direction as before they entered the magnets and at the same speed. Thus this is a "filter" that selects spin-up electrons.

Now, again as promised, we simplify by taking all three magnets and the beam stopper and put it in a box. In the figure we also have included an electron gun firing a beam of electrons at the box.

So one-half of the incident beam of electrons will emerge.

It will be important to notice that we have painted an arrow on the front side of the box to indicate what direction is "up." You can't see it yet, but there is also an arrow pointing in the same direction on the back of the box.

Using the Spin Filter

Note that one-half of the incident beam of electrons on the filter emerge from the box, while the other half do not. This is independent of the orientation of the filter; in all the orientations shown below one-half of the incident electrons emerge, while the other half do not.

Evidently the direction of "up" is defined by the orientation of the filter doing the measurement. This is sometimes called spatial quantisation, a term I do not like.

We now put a second filter behind the first with the same orientation. The second filter has no effect. Half of the electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first box, and all of those electrons pass through the second filter. So, once "up" is defined by the first filter, it is the same as the "up" defined by the second.

Now we put the second filter behind the first and upside down relative to the first. As always, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter, and none of those electrons emerge from the second filter. So, evidently once the first filter defines "up" that definition is the second filter's definition of "down."

Here is another orientation for the second filter, this time oriented at 90° relative to the first one.

To repeat once again, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter. It turns out that one-half of those electrons pass through the second filter. So if we have two definitions of "up" from two filters at right angles to each other, one half of the electrons will satisfy both definitions.

If we slowly rotate the orientation of the second filter with respect to the first one from zero degrees to 180 degrees, the fraction of the electrons that passed the first filter that get through the second filter goes continuously from 100% to 0%.

Technical note: if the relative angle is A, the percentage is 100 cos2(A/2).

All of the above may remind you of polaroid filters for light. One half of a beam of light from, say, an incandescent lamp will pass through such a filter. If a second filter is placed behind the first one with the same orientation, all the light from the first filter passes through the second (at least in the case of perfect polaroid filters). A brief summary of light polarisation appears here.

If the relative orientation of the two polaroid filters for light is 90°, then no light emerges from the second filter. This corresponds to the case above for electron filters when the relative orientation is 180°.

If the relative orientation of the two polaroid filters for light is 45°, one half of the light from the first filter will emerge from the second. This corresponds to the case above for electron filters when the relative orientation is 90°.

We conclude that the only difference between electron and light filters is a factor of 2 in the relative orientations. Thus, often we call the electron filters "polarisers."

Here is a final example of combining electron filters.

One-half of the beam from the electron gun emerges from the first polariser; one-half of those electrons emerge from the second filter. And one-half of those electrons will make it through the third upside-down filter! Note that if the second filter were not present, no electrons will emerge from the upside-down filter. So we see that the middle filter actually changes the definition of "up" for the electrons. This is yet another manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

A Flash animation of up to 3 of these Stern-Gerlach filters has been prepared. It requires Flash 7, and has a file size of 130k. It will appear in a separate window. To access the animation, click here.
Correlation Measurements

We imagine a radioactive substance that emits a pair of electrons in each decay. These two electrons go in opposite directions, and are emitted nearly simultaneously. When another nucleus in the sample decays, another pair of electrons are emitted nearly simultaneously and in opposite directions. So we can have a sample emitting these pairs of electrons. To the right we show such a sample, enclosed in a copper colored device, and electron filters measuring the spin of each member of the pair:

For the radioactive substance we will be considering here, one-half of the electrons incident on the right hand filter emerge and one-half do not. Similarly, one-half of the electrons incident on the left hand filter emerge and one-half do not.

But if we look at the correlation between these electrons, we find that if, say, the right hand electron does pass through the filter, then its left hand companion does not pass its filters. Similarly, if the right hand electron does not pass through the filter, then its left hand companion always emerges from its filter.

We say that each radioactive decay has a total spin of zero: if one electron is spin up its companion is spin down. Of course, this is provided that both filters have the same definition of up.

To the right is a case where the two filters have opposite definitions of up.

Again, one-half of the right hand electrons pass through their filter and one-half of the left hand electrons pass through their filter. But this time if a particular right hand electron passes its filter, then its companion left hand electron always passes its filter. Similarly, if the right hand electron does not pass its filter, its companion electron doesn't pass through its filter either.

Now we consider yet another example.

The two filters define "up" to be in perpendicular directions to each other. If you are still following this business with electron filters, you will not be surprised to learn that:

1. One-half of the right hand electrons emerge from their filter.
2. One-half of the left hand electrons emerge from their filter.
3. If a particular right hand electron passes its filter, one-half of the time its companion left hand electron will emerge from its filter, one-half of the time it will not.

These sorts of measurements are called correlation experiments. We show an arbitrary relative orientation of the two filters.

We summarise all of the above by saying that when the two filters have the same orientation, the correlation is zero: if the right hand electron passes its companion does not. When the two filters have opposite orientations, the correlation is 100%: if the right hand electron passes, so does its companion, while if the right hand electron does not pass, neither does its companion. When the two filters have perpendicular orientations, the correlation is 50%. It turns out that the correlation goes smoothly from zero to 100% as the relative orientation goes from 0° to 180°. For the mathphilic student, the actual formula is that the correlation is sin(a/2) squared, where a is the relative angle between the filters.

There are radioactive substances that emits pairs of photons similar the the pairs of electrons we have been consider so far. Some such substances have similar correlations to the electron source we have been considering, except that there is a difference of a factor of two in the relative orientations of the polarisers. If the light polarisers have the same orientation, the correlation is zero; this is the same as for electrons.

If the light polarisers have a relative orientation of 90°, the correlation is 100%: if the right hand photon passes through its polariser it companion photon will pass its polarisers, while if the right hand photon does not pass, neither does its companion. This corresponds to the case for electrons where the relative orientation of the filters was 180°.

Similarly, if you are still following all this, the correlation when the relative orientation of the light polarisers is 45° is 50%, just the correlation for electron with relative filter orientations of 90°.

As we shall see these correlation experiments, both for electrons and photons, have been performed and turn out to give us important information about the way the world is put together. This is the thrust of Bell's Theorem, also sometimes known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.
Author

This document was written by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto, mailto:harrison@physics.utoronto.ca in March 1998. This is $Revision: 1.26 $, $Date: 2006/03/12 18:11:55 $ (y/m/d UTC).

This document is Copyright © 1998 - 2005 David M. Harrison.
Click to expand...

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

And finally, and actual article which backs up and makes my case for me.

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Science Daily — REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

The research team headed by Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, included Ph.D. student Eyal Buks, Dr. Ralph Schuster, Dr. Diana Mahalu and Dr. Vladimir Umansky. The scientists, members of the Condensed Matter Physics Department, work at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Center for Submicron Research.

When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior. The theoretical basis for this phenomenon was developed several years ago by a number of physicists, including Dr. Adi Stern and Prof. Yoseph Imry of the Weizmann Institute of Science, together with Prof. Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University. The new experimental work was initiated following discussions with Weizmann Institute's Prof. Shmuel Gurvitz, and its results have already attracted the interest of theoretical physicists around the world and are being studied, among others, by Prof. Yehoshua Levinson of the Weizmann Institute.

Tomorrow's Technology

The experiment's finding that observation tends to kill interference may be used in tomorrow's technology to ensure the secrecy of information transfer. This can be accomplished if information is encoded in such a way that the interference of multiple electron paths is needed to decipher it. "The presence of an eavesdropper, who is an observer, although an unwanted one, would kill the interference," says Prof. Heiblum. "This would let the recipient know that the message has been intercepted."

On a broader scale, the Weizmann Institute experiment is an important contribution to the scientific community's efforts aimed at developing quantum electronic machines, which may become a reality in the next century. This radically new type of electronic equipment may exploit both the particle and wave nature of electrons at the same time and a greater understanding of the interplay between these two characteristics are needed for the development of this equipment. Such future technology may, for example, open the way to the development of new computers whose capacity will vastly exceed that of today's most advanced machines.

This research was funded in part by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany. Prof. Imry holds the Max Planck Chair of Quantum Physics and heads the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics.

The Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel, is one of the world's foremost centers of scientific research and graduate study. Its 2,400 scientists, students, technicians, and engineers pursue basic research in the quest for knowledge and the enhancement of the human condition. New ways of fighting disease and hunger, protecting the environment, and harnessing alternative sources of energy are high priorities.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

That's 3 seperate pieces of scientific evidence based on actual experiments not opinions. These are the facts, and there are more where these came from.

Where are your sources? Where are your facts? What is your evidence? Where are your equations? What is your theory?

If all you can do is look for holes to punch into my theory, that just shows me you disagree with the theory, but if you want to actually debate, it's now your turn to present facts which say the opposite of what my facts just said. If you cannot find any, then you are relying on religion and opinion to make your case instead of science and facts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. G · Feb 15, 2007

TimeTraveler said: ↑

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?
Click to expand...

Ah, Perception is Reality rephrased on a universal scale.

Did the universe exist before any of us living entities were born?

Will the universe continue to exist after every living thing has died?

Is conceit zero-point energy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Crunchy Cat · Feb 15, 2007

samcdkey said: ↑

Umm it does, unless you define perception as conscious only.

Self awareness has subconscious attributes too.
Click to expand...

I didn't say perception. I said awareness. Your awarness begins the moment that chain of events flips that 'on' switch.

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

Mr. G said: ↑

Ah, Perception is Reality rephrased on a universal scale.

Did the universe exist before any of us living entities were born?

Will the universe continue to exist after every living thing has died?

Is conceit zero-point energy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

1. The universe existed, the 3rd dimension did not exist. Particles have awareness of some sort too, on the quantum level, but the material solid 3d universe did not exist before it was observed into existence by an entity. Perhaps the first lifeform that developed eyes, observed this universe into existence as we know it. Perhaps living matter was the first form of matter. Or perhaps life did not start out in matter, but in particles. I cannot claim to know all the possible types of lifeforms in the universe to answer that question but the possibility is that, no, life may not be restricted to matter. Life as we know it is restricted to matter but that is all. Awareness itself on the otherhand may not be a function of matter but a function of electrons, of energy, and electrons might have given us "life" much in the same way that a robot or computer is given it's version of "life". The difference is, we have DNA, and because we have DNA we have free will, because we are self upgrading and self programming. The day when computers can program themselves and upgrade themselves, who's to say they don't be like "fuck those humans, kill them all!", we just don't know.

2. After the universe loses it's self awareness, the universe dies. That's my theory. This means that the universe needs awareness in it to exist. The material universe we are in, needs living matter to exist(life), and maybe the 4th dimension, space/time, needs the living mind to exist. Maybe time is just an illusion of our minds because we grow old and die, maybe time is actually change change, and maybe time is related to size. When something is small enough, you can literally cheat space and communicate mind to mind across infinite distance, basically breaking the speed of light and the rules of the 4th dimension. This is not to mention the possibility of wormholes and time travel, all which are invented by the mind. You see, the mind dominates time just as the electron dominates the brain/body to create the mind, and the electron is just a particle in movement, it's all a process of energy expansion. Matter is a specific expanded form of energy. The mind is also an expanded form of energy. Your body is kinetic energy, and when you talk your energy becomes a wave, and when you create a video your energy becomes light, everything you do influences all sorts of photons, electrons, and other particles to communicate information, so the mind actually dominates time, but it also dominates all the other dimensions, from the 4th, to the 3d, to the 2nd, and 1st. So it's easy to see that if the mind is the controller of the universe, if you remove the awareness from the universe, and all observers, it will basically kill the universe. The universe is only alive because it's aware.

The last question about zero-point energy, I considered that but I would not call it zero point energy. The mind might be another dimension, a sort of expanded matter or it might be how new dimensions are created. Perhaps the processes we go through, applying our collective universal minds, to solve the universe, actually creates the universes dimensions.

Say we were to discover that if you network a million minds together it does represent a new type of energy. This theory is called singularity, and if you do reach a singularity, the speed of technological innovation increases. Let's say another non human species finally figured it out. Let's say an alien species, finally stopped warring with itself, and focused itself 100% on solving the universe and on improving its existence, and lets say this species figured out how to make itself immortal.

Now there are 100 trillion of them, and all of them are as smart as we are, and all of their brains are connected to a quantum computer network. In this situation if you were to think of a problem, the problem could be distributed between all living aliens on the planet who would think collectively solve it within a matter of nano seconds. The quantum computer would be so fast that it would be able to crunch all the numbers, and do all the difficult calculations, allowing each individual alien to simply ask questions, and focus on choosing from a list of answers. In this environment, it would be like being connected to Google all the time, anything you think, you'd get the answer to, any problem would automatically be solved, there would never be a shortage of solutions. There would be free labor because robots would assemble themselves to do all the dirty work.They'd have cracked the code for unlimited energy if unlimited energy exists, and if it does not exist they'd have so much information that they'd have machines so efficient that they would look like lifeforms. These machines would then for example, be spread out into the universe to do specific tasks, and would simply eat themselves in a continuous cycle. They'd get their energy from the sunlight and the stars, and the food cycle would provide a near endless supply of renewable energy.

In that environment, everything these machines do would be monitored by the aliens, every single action, every single calculation, everything. The aliens would also maintain the ability to upload information to their subconcious, if the aliens then decided to spread life throughout the entire universe this way, then you can easily see how life could have spread, and fairly quickly too. Now what happens if something goes wrong? If something goes wrong, the aliens would still have a way to upload information to the subconcious of the living machines. These living machines would have no way to even detect whats going on because they would not know they were machines built by aliens, they'd think they were animals that evolved in some freak accident, or that they evolved from each other somehow.

So in the big cosmic picture, if the singularity does take place eventually technology could reach a state, that the original aliens would evolve beyond the point where they'd need a body at all. Being immortal, at some point they'd crack the code of the 4d itself and move to a timeless formless state. It's simple, if they developed the ability to disassemble themselves into atoms and then back into matter, not only could they collapse themselves into an atom or atoms, but they could also expand themselves to be everywhere at once. All they'd have to do, is figure out how to be two places at once, and that is actually possible on the atomic level, so once again if it is possible to bring awareness up from atomic size to molecular size to build a human or an alien, it may also be possible ot bring awareness back down to atomic size. One example would be nano computers, but assuming an alien technology is billions of years ahead of us, they might have atomic robots for all we know, or even synthetic atoms. When things get small enough, all the rules of physics seem to break. As far as what aliens might be capable of in this universe. If there are aliens in this universe, some of them would be so much more advanced than us that we would not be able to observe them at all, because we'd be like the atom to them, or the electron to them, or some particle, or molecule to them. They on the other hand would be able to observe us in some microscope the same way we observe the quantum world, and if they wanted to interact with us, I'm sure they could simply build machines and upload the information or DNA to those machines to allow them to do it.

The mind is basically infinite power, and if an alien has that power it would explain why the universe is so stable. If we are not the only ones here it could explain why there are any laws at all, but our physicists and scientists when they make calculations do not consider all the possibilities, such as the possibility that there are lifeforms so complex that we might not even be able to recognize it as life. There might be lifeforms that never die, and that don't have to reproduce. There might be lifeforms that exist in unlimited temperatures, such as unbelieveable cold, or unbelieveable heat, or unbelieveable sizes, and have properties which would boggle our mind. So at this point, all I can say is that self awareness is existence, I don't know all the forms that self awareness comes in, because it might have as many forms as there are stars, it might be infinite.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...e: development of perception in ..." #PPA1,M1

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

Crunchy Cat said: ↑

I didn't say perception. I said awareness. Your awarness begins the moment that chain of events flips that 'on' switch.
Click to expand...

Awareness, you keep saying this as if you know for sure awareness is physical. We do not know exactly what makes something aware. Insects are aware and they don't have brains, at least not like ours, they have this
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It seems the universe itself is aware, how? I don't know. That's the main question.

Crunchy Cat · Feb 15, 2007

TimeTraveler said: ↑

There is no such thing as a brick if there is no observer to look at it, measure it, calculate it, and interpret the information and give it a definition "brick". The brick only exists because it was observed into existence.
Click to expand...

Thats fantasy and the articles you posted don't support what you are saying (well except the shady line "The two-slit apparatus itself is a paranormal, psychotronic de vice").

TimeTraveler said: ↑

The universe is filled with junk information. Junk information like that brick, which is junk because it is now aware of itself. That which is not aware of itself does not exist. The universe is aware of itself, through us, and the other self aware beings, and it is we who are existence. When the universe ceases being aware of itself, the universe no longer exists.
Click to expand...

That's quite an imagination you have.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

I don't know how you can argue for the existence of a universe which cannot be observed, yet you don't believe in God.
Click to expand...

Um... because there is evidence of one and not the other?

TimeTraveler said: ↑

If you believe the universe is beyond definition, and beyond the scope of existence itself, and beyond observation, and is just this thing which exists outside the scope of reality, how is it any different than believing in heaven, or believing in angels? Or believing in God or the Devil? Or believing in Gods? Or believing the universe itself is God and you are some sorta servant?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't answer your question as I don't 'believe' in anything you listed.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

It's really simple, the universe only exists because of perception/self awareness.
Click to expand...

And reality contradicts that claim.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Perception created the 3rd dimension, the material universe is not real, it's a trick of perception. If you had the vision of a microscope you'd be able to zoom in and see the real universe. You'd see that the real universe depends more on size than on shape. You'd see that there are particles that can be in two places at once. You'd see that time travel, and quantum entanglement are possible. You'd begin to understand that the 3d exists only due to our perception, and this is proven by the fact that when you zoom out again suddenly everything is solid, but if you zoom in and go small enough everything is liquid, and suddenly you reach a timeless state.

So in reality, if you go small enough, you do reach a timeless non-local state. In that state, there is no beginning or end.
Click to expand...

What I see is fantasy... lots of good old fashioned creative fantasy.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Perception created the 3rd dimension...
Click to expand...

TimeTraveler said: ↑

The big bang created the 3rd dimension...
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In logic, that is called a contradiction.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

That's 3 seperate pieces of scientific evidence based on actual experiments not opinions. These are the facts, and there are more where these came from.
Click to expand...

You actually provided a wealth of evidence (to my surprise) and it didn't support your position in the least... but you did provide evidence... which is the right step towards supporting a position in general. So let me comment upon those three articles.

TWO SLIT PARADOX:

The article did a good job of describing the experiment... and could have done a better job in the interpretation (nothing major though). When you send a single particle through a double slit well you end up with two very real particles which are typically thought to reflect the probabilities of which slit a particle will travel through. The overall energy of the particle is sufficient to allow both of them to exist at the same time (larger particles don't seem to have enough energy to last long enough for an easy detection).

When you shoot a photon at such a particle a collapse occurs and you end up with one particle... thought to be the most probable outcome. More importantly what the photon does is act as a NON-SENTIENT observer that establishes a relationship with the particle that is strong enough to cause the collapse.

STERN AND GERLACH'S MAGNETS:

Outstanding! I am sure there are plenty of applications for filtering particles by spin direction.

QUANTUM THEORY DEMONSTRATED: OBSERVATION AFFECTS REALITY:

A really great article! This was the article that supposedly made your case and I think you missed the most important part (and this message I have been repeating over and over again but now that your article says it maybe it will sink in):

The "OBSERVER" in this experiment WASN'T HUMAN
Click to expand...

The article also directly supports another assertion I made... that the presence and strength of environmental relationship affects the collapse of superpositions.

when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened
Click to expand...

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Where are your sources? Where are your facts? What is your evidence? Where are your equations? What is your theory?

...
...
...

... but if you want to actually debate, it's now your turn to present facts which say the opposite of what my facts just said. If you cannot find any, then you are relying on religion and opinion to make your case instead of science and facts.
Click to expand...

That nice little Alarm clock scenario does the trick of showing that you are simply incorrect.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

If all you can do is look for holes to punch into my theory, that just shows me you disagree with the theory,
Click to expand...

Well if holes are found it sort of means that your theory isn't true.

Crunchy Cat · Feb 15, 2007

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Awareness, you keep saying this as if you know for sure awareness is physical.
Click to expand...

Is there a such thing as non-phsycial?

TimeTraveler said: ↑

We do not know exactly what makes something aware.
Click to expand...

We have a pretty good idea that its the brain. How awareness works is the real question.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Insects are aware...
Click to expand...

True

TimeTraveler said: ↑

and they don't have brains,
Click to expand...

False

TimeTraveler said: ↑

at least not like ours,
Click to expand...

True

... 66% truth isn't bad for one sentence I suppose.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

...they have this...
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Did you know that a cockaroaches brain is an efficient multi-processor (not multi-tasker like humans)? It's quite fascinating.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

It seems the universe itself is aware, how? I don't know. That's the main question.
Click to expand...

You're asking questions about fantasy... only you can provide the answer.

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

How do you come to the conclusion that the observer in those experiments were not human, when humans conducted all those experiments? It's not like those experiments would have existed had humans not designed all the machines to conduct them.

Even if humans are the indirect observer, humans are the observer. You have to make a case that there is a non human observer, while that is possible, thats even more weird than my theory.

Crunchy Cat · Feb 15, 2007

TimeTraveler said: ↑

How do you come to the conclusion that the observer in those experiments were not human, when humans conducted all those experiments?
Click to expand...

Aside from the 'key' experiment explicitly stating the observer was not human? Think about the double-slit experiment for a moment. Humans can observe both the superposition and the single particle after the experiment is complete. This means two things. One is that we can observe the results of a sequence of actions that took place in the absence of our watching. If existence was not there when we weren't looking then that sequence of events would not have taken place and there would be no results. Also, and probably more imporatantly, we can observe a superposition without making it collapse (so long as the observational relationship isn't too strong)! Did you know that a Bose-Einstein condensate is a superposition and can be directly observed with very strong observational relationships (instead of the traditionally weak ones)?

TimeTraveler said: ↑

It's not like those experiments would have existed had humans not designed all the machines to conduct them.
Click to expand...

Correct and the machines are not sentient.

TimeTraveler said: ↑

Even if humans are the indirect observer, humans are the observer. You have to make a case that there is a non human observer, while that is possible, thats even more weird than my theory.
Click to expand...

All I had to do was make the case that there was an observer whose consciousness was turned off. The alarm clock scenario did just that.

TimeTraveler · Feb 15, 2007

Correct and the machines are not sentient.
Click to expand...

Was the maker of the machine sentient? Just because a human uses a machine to do the observation, it does not change the fact that it's a human observation anymore than using a microscope changes that fact.

You might be able to make a weak case that it's an indirect observation, but you have not proved that anything occured independently of observation period. The science proves observation is neccessary, and just because you point out that it does not have to be direct human observation, it does also say that observation is neccessary.

Now, what might be possible is that the electron itself, or the particle itself is self aware, and reacts to the observation by other particles. You have not considered that because you changed the word to sentient which I never used.

Here is some information from a site that interprets the results the exact opposite of how you interpret them.

"Check both slits
We place extremely sensitive particle detectors behind each slit and then set the emitter to release electrons singly. We wait to observe the simultaneous arrival of two bits of electrons at both particles detectors. And we wait ... and wait ... and wait. But all we ever see is that either one particle detector registers an electron or the other does, but never both simultaneously. Each electron travels through either one slit or the other.

So if it does not traverse both routes, how does the electron 'know' that the other slit is present. Well obviously a thing as simple as an electron can't know anything. And yet knowledge of the existence of a second slit is involved at the deepest level of these series of experiments. Knowledge of possibilities rather than any actual particle trajectory , or other physical event, seems to be determining the properties of material objects. But if the electron has no knowledge of its environment, then the only other place where such knowledge could reside is in the mind of the observer. Therefore the observer's mind is in some way determining the outcome of the observations.

If the experimenter's observational set-up imputes the concept 'wave', then he will see wave-like behaviour. If he imputes the concept 'particle' then he will see particle-like behaviour. Even placing a particle detector behind only one of the slits destroys the interference pattern, because the experimenter has in so doing imputed the concept 'particles' over the electrons despite both slits remaining open and one route being unobstructed. More detailed descriptions of the two-slit paradox are given in The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose [PENROSE 1990b ] and Where Does the Weirdness Go? by David Lindley [LINDLEY 1997a]."

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/Quantumphenomena.htm

Physicists do Ontology: "Does the Moon exist when we're not looking?" (The Bohr vs. Einstein debate over nonlocal vs. local reality and the EPR paradox [Peat, ch. 4, "Bohr vs. Einstein"])

Einstein resists q.m. because of its probabilistic character ("God does not play dice," to quote the famous phrase), and because both the epistemology and ontology of the Copenhagen Interpretation clashed with his classical (Newtonian) belief regarding the essential separateness of subject and object - and the belief that an external reality does exist, independent of the subject/observer:

* This reality of Einstein's is known as a "local" reality. Each system or object can be defined and understood in its own particular region of space. Objects have their own independent existence, and if they change, then it must be as the result of interactions or forces acting from outside. These forces can also be defined in an objective way through the laws of nature. There are no mysterious "actions at a distance," no mystical influences. Objects possess properties, Einstein said. They move along paths; their fates are determined.
But then Bohr and Heisenberg came along with complementarity and the uncertainty principle. They denied that the electron has a path, or even that it possesses any intrinsic properties like position and velocity. In fact, they seemed to be saying that the only reality one can talk about lies in the mathematical equations, and that there is no point in trying to construct mental models of the quantum world. To Einstein this was a "tranquilizing philosophy" (as he put it in a letter to Schrödinger), a metaphysical approach to the world that induced a sleep of the mind by smothering questions about the ultimate nature of the quantum world. The Copenhagen interpretation was nothing more than "a soft pillow on which to lay one's head"; it was not a true theory of nature or an attempt to engage reality face to face, but an encouragement to daydream. (69)

Out of this resistance comes Einstein's effort to refute q.m. - most powerfully, in the Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen paradox.

The EPR paradox argues that we can get around the indeterminacy principle by taking the measurement of a particle's velocity or position as a way of "knowing" about its twin's velocity or position - apparently in contradiction to the Copenhagen Interpretation which says the velocity or position cannot be known until it is measured.

Bohr's refutation of this is to point out that the paradox assumes what q.m. and the Copenhagen Interpretation deny - and what is at stake in the debate between Einstein and Bohr - namely, that the twin particle "has" any such property as velocity or location apart from measurement of the property. (See Peat, 79-81)

In logical terms, the EPR paradox begs the question.

In still other terms, Einstein's insistence on an independent reality with properties that exist apart from and prior to our knowing these in a measurement is a violation of strict empiricism - which demands that terms have no meaning unless those terms can be anchored in an empirical/sense experience.

Interestingly, Pauli sees Einstein's insistence on the independent existence of particles and their properties as parallel to a notorious example of merely speculative metaphysics - i.e., the [alleged] discussion as to how many angels can sit on the point of a needle. (The Bohr-Einstein Letters [New York: Walker, 1971], quoted in Peat, 83.)

This "metaphysical" (my term) insistence on an independent, external reality, note, contrasts with the account of the world provided by q.m.:

* Bohr had said, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description." Heisenberg had echoed, "The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts." (Peat, 85)
Cf.: "...the wave function [of the primordial source of the universe] is not real; it is simply a device used in the mathematics of quantum theory. Indeed, it is a wave of probability rather than an oscillation of matter. What the wave function describes is the probability that a particle will be discovered in a particular region of space should a measurment be carried out. This same wave function is also the mathematical tool used to predict the outcome of other experimental measurements. So what sense does it make to talk about the reality of wave functions and quantum states when no laboratory apparatus is around - indeed, when no large-scale world yet exists?" (86)

This abstract, unreal world of potentialities and possibilities, however, resembles Plato and Aristotle's "metaphysical" accounts much more than Einstein's apparently "common sense" (pre-Kantian?) insistence on an independent, external reality!

[Historical note: there is apparently no record of any medieval discussion of how many angels could sit/dance on the head of a pin/needle. This is apparently modernist propoganda intended to denigrate the ways of knowing of an earlier time in the effort to demonstrate the superiority of "modern" ways of knowing, i.e., natural science.]

Bell's Theorem

The point here is that the debate between Einstein and Bohr over reality - i.e., whether indeed an independent, external reality exists apart from the observer ("Is the moon there when you're not looking?") - moved from a philosophical debate to a scientific one: with Bell's theorem, it became possible to test the two metaphysical assumptions, i.e., the Einsteinian assumption of a local reality (independent of the observer, etc.) vs. the Copenhagen Interpretation of q.m. (see p. 94)

In particular, Bell's theorem demonstrates a contrast between the correlation to be found between measurements on twin particles:

* if local reality is correct, the correlation will lie between -2 and 2;
if q.m. is correct, the correlation (e.g., for detectors at 45 degrees) = 2.83

These numbers mean, notice:

* ...the quantum world is more highly correlated than any world that depends on a local reality or locally operating hidden variables. (112)

The Experiments:

Briefly, the experimental work confirms the q.m. prediction, not the correlation predicted for local reality.

Implications:

While contemporary physicists/scientists may wish to ignore the "metaphysical" questions and implications surrounding "nonlocality" as now demonstrated via Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiments - Peat suggests that this effort at ignorance is parallel to an earlier reponse, namely, the response to Newton's conception of gravity as "action at a distance." (126)

Indeed, the demonstration of nonlocality is a fundamental paradigm shift out of Newtonian mechanics:

* ...physics had been wedded to locality, to systems that were well defined within their own particular regions of space and time, and to interactions that involved the transmissions of physical energy across space. The idea of nonlocality appears to deny this most basic fact of everyday experience, for it suggests that distant systems can be connected in a totally new way - a way in which distance no longer seems to matter. (127)

Among the many implications which Peat discusses, let me stress those under the heading "A Connected Universe" (156ff.)

Most generally, quantum mechanics appears to force us to recognize the limits of the "classical" Cartesian/Newtonian atomism and mechanistic picture of the world. While this picture works at a certain scale of reality ("between" the subatomic and the relativistic) - it is not an accurate account of all of reality, nor of "reality" at its most fundamental level.

Rather - if q.m. is correct, "reality" is unitary and connected in ways that correlate nicely with, for example, the direct experiences of connectedness reported in all religious traditions (cf. Peat, 158f.)

This wholeness and connectedness as a starting point (cf. Peat, 160) - over against the modern presumption of atomism and difference - further correlate with Platonic and Pauline conceptions of wholeness/health (i.e., of the body and psyche whose health consists in the harmonic working together of all the parts, as each part does its proper function in the right proportion to the other parts - a notion which also defines justice for Plato in the Republic, as it defines the harmony of the "body of Christ" for Paul [I Corinthians 11]).

Finally, the implication Peat draws from David Bohm's notions of quantum potential and the implicate order - i.e., of "gentle action" at the "edges" of a system, in order to effect significant and dramatic changes at the "center" (cf. Peat, 160-164) - correlate nicely with

* a) especially Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist ideas of "actionless action"
(non-attachment to the +/- consequences of our acts, undertaken for their own sake, not for the sake of self, in the Bhagavad-Gita;
wu-wei in Taoism;
non-interference in Buddhist traditions), and
b) notions of "self-emptying" (kenosis ) in especially Greek-Christian traditions (so Ellis).
Click to expand...

http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html#epistemology

Here is a thesis on the non-locality of the mind.

http://www.scispirit.com/tex/

If this thesis is correct, it ties in with the non-locality of the quantum world.

There is also an another article, Beyond the Point Particle -
A Wave Structure for the Electron

Abstract. The dual particle/wave nature of the electron has long been a paradox in physics. It is now seen that the electron consists entirely of a structure of spherical waves whose behavior creates their particle-like appearance. The correctness of this structure is supported by the physical laws which originate from this wave structure, including quantum theory, special relativity, electric force, gravity, and magnetism. This type of structure is termed a Space Resonance.
Click to expand...

http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/body_point.html

If N=E, and we know an electron is actually not matter, or even a particle, but a quantum wave, and we know the fuzzy actions of the electron, a lot of things are possible. The concept of mirror neurons suddenly makes a bit more sense if N=E.

In an experiment in quantum entanglement of electrons, this was the result.

Quantum Entanglement Of Three Electrons Achieved
The quantum entanglement of three electrons, using an ultrafast optical pulse and a quantum well of a magnetic semiconductor material, has been demonstrated in a laboratory at the University of Michigan, marking another step toward the realization of a practical quantum computer. While several experiments in recent years have succeeded in entangling pairs of particles, few researchers have managed to correlate three or more particles in a predictable fashion.

The results were presented in an article on Nature Materials' web site on February 23 and will appear in the March 4 issue of Nature Materials, titled "Optically induced multispin entanglement in a semiconductor quantum well." Authors of the paper are Jiming Bao, Andrea V. Bragas, Jacek K. Furdyna (University of Notre Dame), and Roberto Merlin.

Entanglement, which is essential to the creation of a quantum computer, is one of the mysterious properties of quantum mechanics that contradicts the notions of classical realism. Quantum computers will be able to perform highly complex tasks that would be impossible for a classical computer, at great speed.

Briefly, entanglement describes a particular state of a set of particles of energy or matter for which correlations exist, so that the particles affect each other regardless of how far apart they are. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." We know that we must be able to harness entanglement in order to develop the quantum gates necessary for storing and processing information in practical quantum computers. These devices will offer enormously enhanced computing power that would permit extremely fast ways to solve certain mathematical problems, such as the factorization of large numbers.

The Michigan team, which has been working on the problem for several years, used ultrafast (50-100 femtosecond) laser pulses and coherent techniques to create and control spin-entangled states in a set of non-interacting electrons bound to donors in a CdTe quantum well. The method, which relies on the exchange interaction between localized excitons and paramagnetic impurities, could in principle be used to entangle an arbitrarily large number of spins.

In the presence of an external magnetic field, a resonant laser pulse creates localized excitons (bound electron-hole pairs) of radius ~ 0.005 microns in the CdTe well. Electrons bound to donor impurities within that radius feel the presence of the exciton in such a way that they became entangled after the exciton is gone. The process involves resonant Raman transitions between Zeeman split spin states. In the experiments, the signature of entanglement involving m electrons is the detection of the mth-harmonic of the fundamental Zeeman frequency in the differential reflectivity data.

"The community is trying various approaches to achieve controllable interactions between qubits. We've seen a variety of proposed solutions from atomic physicists involving trapped ions and atoms and even 'flying qubits' based on light," said Merlin. "Solutions based on semiconductor technology, like ours for example, may well hold more promise for practical implementation when combined with advances in nanotechnology."

The experiments have so far involved a large ensemble of sets of 3 electrons. "Our procedure is potentially set-specific and scalable, which means that it shows definite promise for quantum computing applications," Merlin said. Cryptography is expected to be one of the first such applications.
Click to expand...

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030126213558data_trunc_sys.shtml

This final piece of evidence comes directly from NASA's website where they discuss the observation/observer issue in detail.

The Observer in Modern Physics
Some Personal Speculations
The phenomena of the cosmos require an observer in order to be learned about and understood by us. The observer can take many forms, for example:

1. A person watching amoeba through a microscope
2. A person watching an ocean sunset
3. A spacecraft monitoring a distant asteroid (and transmitting data to earth)
4. A person conducting an experiment in a laboratory

The ideal observer is one who causes no unnecessary perturbations to the system being observed. An observation made by such an observer is called an objective observation. In our school physics and chemistry, we routinely assume that our observations are objective.

But reality seldom, if ever, provides us with ideals. The real observer always causes an unnecessary perturbation of some kind. Scientists must remain alert in their efforts to minimize the magnitudes of these perturbations. The extent to which they succeed determines the level of confidence they can claim in their results and, therefore, the certainty they can expect in their knowledge of things.

In the 20th century, physics was forced into the position of re-evaluating the role of the observer, both in relativity and in quantum mechanics. In relativity, the absolutes of Newtonian physics were banished, and observations obtained by observers in different frames of reference became all that was available. These observations were linked through a system of coordinate transformations.

In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. This situation is represented by the wave function, a function in the complex domain that contains information about both the cosmos at large and the observer's apparent state of knowledge.

I have long been fascinated by these developments and have developed a model to help me both to understand them and to explain them to others. I wish to share this model with you...

Let us ask a simple question: When you look up at night and "see" a star, what is "really" going on? A Newtonian philosopher might answer that you are "really seeing" the star, since, in Newtonian physics, the speed of light is reckoned as being infinite. An Einsteinian philosopher, on the other hand, would answer that you are seeing the star as it was in a past epoch, since light travels with finite velocity and therefore takes time to cross the gulf of space between the star and your eye. To see the star "as it is right now" has no meaning since there exists no means for making such an observation.

A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all. The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time-an electromagnetic field. What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects.

This line of argument brings us to an interesting notion: that of the interaction boundary. Let us assume an observer and a system to be observed-any observer and any system. Between them, imagine a boundary, and call it an interaction boundary. This boundary is strictly mathematical; it has no necessary physical reality. In order for the observers to learn about the system, they must cause at least one quantum of "information" (energy, momentum, spin, or what-have-you) to pass from themselves through the boundary. The quantum of information is absorbed by the system (or it might be reflected back) and the system is thereby perturbed. Because it has undergone a perturbation, it causes another quantum of information to pass back through the boundary to the observer. The "observation" is the observer's subjective response to receiving this information. In a simple diagram, the situation looks like this:

right arrow
O | S
leftarrow

where O and S represent the observer and the system, the vertical line represents the interaction boundary, and the arrows represent the information exchanged in the act of observation.

In this scheme, no observation can be made without first perturbing the system. The observation is never one of the system "at rest," but of the system perturbed. If Sigma represents the state of the system before the perturbation and Sigma ±deltaSigma represents the state immediately after, then the observation approaches the ideal only if

deltaSigma<< Sigma.

If I is the information selected by the observer to send across the interaction boundary, then it is apparent that deltaSigma must be a function of I: i.e.,

deltaSigma = deltaSigma(I).

Thus, the observation is affected by choices made by the observer, as quantum mechanics seems to teach. In the case of atomic and some molecular phenomena, the inequality

deltaSigma<<Sigma

does not hold; in fact deltaSigmaright arrowSigma so that the perturbation is comparable in magnitude to the state itself. Because all information is exchanged in quanta (modern physics does not allow for the "smooth exchange" of arbitrarily small pieces of information), this situation necessarily gives rise to an inescapable uncertainty in such observations. The quantum theory takes this uncertainty into account as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Uncertainty is not strictly a law of Nature, but is a result of natural laws that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence. Observers in modern physics truly become participants in their observation, whatever that observation might be.
Click to expand...

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

All I had to do was make the case that there was an observer whose consciousness was turned off. The alarm clock scenario did just that.
Click to expand...

You only made the case that it was not a direct human observation. You did not make the case that conciousness was turned off or not involved. If the act of observation changed something, then either the electron is concious, or the observer is concious, or both. Consider that the human brain's neurons run on electrons as well, and that our conciousness is based on electrons. We have no way to claim the electron itself is not concious on some level, we just don't know. Einstien did not know, people discussing it today do not know, that is why it's a paradox. All we know is that observation influences reality, we do not yet know what conciousness is, and isnt.

Crunchy Cat · Feb 16, 2007

I'm sorry but your 'theory' has not stood up. Turning to Buddhist monk interpretation, pseudoscience, and mixing it with real science while ignoring what you don't want to hear isn't going to change that.

TimeTraveler · Feb 16, 2007

Crunchy Cat said: ↑

I'm sorry but your 'theory' has not stood up. Turning to Buddhist monk interpretation, pseudoscience, and mixing it with real science while ignoring what you don't want to hear isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

The interpretation is based on the exact same "science" we are discussing. It's just another theory.

There are many quantum theories out there, and my theory is just one of many. It's not that my theory does not hold up, because my theory is based on the exact same information and observations as all the others, with the only difference being in the conclusion. Until we can test my theory one way or the other, it's still a theory/hypothesis.

You have not proven my theory false just like I have not proven my theory correct. That means it's up to individual interpretation at this point. You have to remember, I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, I blend science and philosophy. I apply scientific method to philosophy. The whole point is to allow for people to interpret the science, and in order to do that you need a framework/context.

Gently Passing · Nov 6, 2007

If you're dying of Alzheimer's disease in a Nursing Home, and people come to change your diaper every couple of hours, but you don't see them, and you think they are your childhood cat, are they really people changing your diaper or are they your childhood cat?

"Well of course they're people!" says one camp, and they're right.

"Well of course it's your cat!" says the other, and they are also right.

Hence the dualistic nature of the universe. Or as I like to call it, Tabby! Get off the bed, damnit!

Why? · Nov 6, 2007

As self-awareness is really just a function of energy, your question should be rephrased as "What does it mean to exist?" It seems to me that existence does not depend on self-awareness, because non-selfaware matter and self-aware matter come from the same pot. Accordingly, existence is what it is, and it is not defined by that matter which happens to be self-aware.

IJesusChrist · Jun 4, 2008

TimeTraveler said: ↑

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?

It is of my opinion, that we are self aware atoms of organized energy. We went from atoms, to cells, to bodies, to species, etc.
Click to expand...

Hi.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does the universe exist if there is self aware "energy" to percieve it?

IJesusChrist · Jun 4, 2008

Oh, and time traveler...
Of course observing an electron will change it's course, in order to observe and electron you must physically touch it with something else, an electron or a photon, and register and alayse what's bounced back.
... Of course observing it changes it's projectory, you just touched it.

SlowDeath · Sep 21, 2008

Matter, energy, space and time, not thought as thought is made of the previously mentioned creations, are all made. Thus forming a reality for ?

The ? is .... I now the suspense is killing you.... Okay the ? is an awareness unit that is aware of being aware. As oppressed to an awareness unit unaware that it is aware.

The awareness unit itself is created, dreamed up, thought up, perceived or whatever adjective you feel comfortable with and is there because of a Static.

A Static is outside basic human perception even though it is what every human IS!

No different really than the fact that a grain of sand exists even though it is unable to perceive it does. Well none that I have spoke to anyway.

A Static possesses characteristics like, it is an individual, not part of a whole. With every life experience it gains more individuality.

Each Static reached agreements with other Statics on the basic, matter, energy, space and time universe we find ourselves in at present.

How did we all agree that there should be bad things on this planet. Well we agreed that unless we experience hot we must experience cold to know there is a difference. It is all relative. We also agreed to dumb up every time we are re-incarnated.

By the time you realize it is all a self agreed, self created game you were living you are re-born again at square one.

The point...Maybe to learn and teach >understanding< thus we will not have to burn our childrens fingers with matches to teach them "HOT".

Hey, lighten up I am just rambling....

Reanimation · Sep 28, 2010

If humans were not here to perceive the universe then it would not exist. There would be nobody here to speak of a universe or think or a universe. We create the universe. When we hear a sound, we know it exists because we can hear it. To a deaf person sound does not exist. If we didn't have brains to think of the universe would it really exist? I believe that everything around us is here because we are here to perceive its existence.

Wow, did not notice how old this thread was.

Log in or Sign up

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

Why? Registered Senior Member

IJesusChrist Registered Member

IJesusChrist Registered Member

SlowDeath Closed eyes but still I see! Registered Senior Member

Reanimation Registered Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

Why? Registered Senior Member

IJesusChrist Registered Member

IJesusChrist Registered Member

SlowDeath Closed eyes but still I see! Registered Senior Member

Reanimation Registered Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member

Crunchy Cat F-in' meow* baby!!!* Valued Senior Member