You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Does an object exist if no one observes it?
November 23 2024 5.01am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Does an object exist if no one observes it?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

  

nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 03 Jan 18 3.24pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

All I can add to this discussion is that I believe that scientists have no idea about wider reality. They have a tiny glimpse of it and then make a lot of what are essentially guesses about what it is all about.

Yep, can't give experts too much credence these days can you. Especially if the researched peer reviewed stuff counters your viewpoint.
What a glorious age we live in.


All this talk of atoms being in 2 different places simultaneously. A lot to get yer head around.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 3.26pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

All I can add to this discussion is that I believe that scientists have no idea about wider reality. They have a tiny glimpse of it and then make a lot of what are essentially guesses about what it is all about.

I think a lot of them would agree with you. Our view is probably blocked.

Though we are inching further along that path.

Still, it's our existing knowledge of how reality works at these levels that gives us the technology that we have....such as the modern computer.....GPS...blu ray players...fibre optics...well the modern internet.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 3.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Yep, can't give experts too much credence these days can you. Especially if the researched peer reviewed stuff counters your viewpoint.
What a glorious age we live in.


All this talk of atoms being in 2 different places simultaneously. A lot to get yer head around.

I think what you are talking about is superposition.

We know that certain quantum particles don't have the same experience of time that we do.....So I think it's more the fact that to us they appear to be in two different places simultaneously and that for us on the macro level they are.

The reality of what is happening though is probably so far from our understanding that this is the only way we can frame it within our dimensions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2018 3.39pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 03 Jan 18 3.38pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Sheks Crows Eye

I've always believed that we lived in a deterministic universe, as far as other dimensions, i'm sure there are many things in the universe that our brains cannot comprehend, a bit like sitting a dog at a computer and asking it to pull up google chrome.

It makes me think of the Netflix show Stranger Things and the "upside down" portion that universe.

Perhaps thats where we go when we pass away, maybe thats where Bigfoot has been all along.


Or Fringe ...or even Flash with Earth two, three, four etc

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 03 Jan 18 3.44pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
At the moment, as is suggested we are a blind man feeling objects and imagining what they look like.


But if thats the case how can we be certain we actually have our eyes open and are seeing what we see...when we do?

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 03 Jan 18 4.28pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Once they are observed they are.

Well kind of, because they have the same properties irrespective of probability - however they still remain connected somehow in a manner thats instantious (likely via higher dimensional 'communication').

Although its been a while since I was into this stuff - Position and properties on the quantum scale seem to be defined by probability, rather than time-space characteristics (and entangled in very complex ways).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 4.36pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Well kind of, because they have the same properties irrespective of probability - however they still remain connected somehow in a manner thats instantious (likely via higher dimensional 'communication').

Although its been a while since I was into this stuff - Position and properties on the quantum scale seem to be defined by probability, rather than time-space characteristics (and entangled in very complex ways).

I'd agree it's likely.....I've been trying to understand the delayed choice quantum eraser...which is pretty heavy duty and I'd say...and of course, I'm just a layman with an average brain, that the implications for higher dimensions are there....the nature of time and communication between particles.....it's pretty amazing what they have seen.

We are living in caveman times in respect to this level of understanding of nature. We have come so far yet we can only wonder as to what's beyond the horizons for future genius to discover.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 03 Jan 18 4.38pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550


But if thats the case how can we be certain we actually have our eyes open and are seeing what we see...when we do?

You really need to visit the same p*** sites I do......You'll know your eyes are open alright.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chelys Flag London 03 Jan 18 5.53pm

Does a post on a football forum exist if no one reads it?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
davenotamonkey Flag 03 Jan 18 5.53pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Once they are observed they are.

Even when they are not, they still are. It's pretty much one of the most fundamental tenets of wave theory, and by extension Quantum Mechanics. You set boundary conditions to analytically define the wavefunction. I don't recall instances where the integrals were ever indefinite.

The point is - the universe isn't "deterministic", it is probabilistic. I'm not quite sure where dimensionality comes into it to be honest. In QM, you generalise an N-dimensional wavefunction so that it applies to any M<N dimensional space: the equation describing the wavefunction of a rabbit in 3D also describes the rabbit in 2D.

As an aside, when I was super-hot at doing this stuff, I remember an exercise where I had to define the 3D Schrodinger equation (time-dependent: "TDSE") for the Hydrogen atom. I then made perturbations to the equation and re-worked the solution. The exercise asked me what had actually happened. I looked over the 6 or 8 pages of quantum mech. I'd written, and it dawned on me: the "orbiting" election (though it was of course described here as a wave) had jumped to the next energy level.

I had done this stuff starting at the very basic level from GCSE Chemistry - electron energy shells, chemical reactions etc. But here it was: the very nature of matter and essentially all of Chemistry in a pure mathematical formalism. Amazing stuff. There's no room left for mysticism and religion after dabbling under the hood of the universe like that.

Edited by davenotamonkey (03 Jan 2018 5.54pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
davenotamonkey Flag 03 Jan 18 5.54pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

As for an "object existing if no one observes it". At a very early stage of cosmic evolution (inflation: just after the big bang), parts of the universe became "causally separated" from each other - they were moving away from each other faster than the speed of light (and hence no information could be exchanged between them). These regions still existed (we can tell this from "weighing" the universe), but we could never have observed them.

Sorry, I'll go back to being a pig-ignorant "Brex5hitter" now.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 03 Jan 18 6.07pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

All I can add to this discussion is that I believe that scientists have no idea about wider reality. They have a tiny glimpse of it and then make a lot of what are essentially guesses about what it is all about.


You need to look up the scientific meaning of the word "theory". It's not what you think.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Does an object exist if no one observes it?