Holographic Paradigm
-
Actually, here's a better 'analogy'.
Peter and John are brothers. When they are alone and only when they are alone Peter does whatever John does no matter where in town they are; they just happen to know what each other are doing and therefore mimic the other. One day John gets kidnapped. Their parents, knowing their strange mimicking habits, comes up with a clever idea to try and figure out what's happening with John by making Peter do something (like call home for help). Only problem is, they could never find out what John was doing because Peter and John only mimic each other in isolation.
Their plan fails and John dies.
-
LOL rotfl
Thanks for the analogies Neo. I do have a better understanding now. What I don't get is why there was such excitement about Aspect's research, if the subatomic particles have to be isolated in order to maintain their harmony. Was it overblown or am I missing something?
Also, this may be a stupid question, but how the hell does someone "observe" sub-atomic particles? In watching "What the Bleep Do We Know", all the quantum physicists said that electrons only appear when we "observe" them, and in that, we don't really observe the electron, but where the electron should be. They said the electrons sort of pop in and out of existence.
Can you explain that?
Thanks again.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace neo,
What I meant in my previous post is on what medium (if it need any)does the gravitational force propagate? Same for the magnetic force?
Like when you take a permanent magnet and a piece of iron, the iron is submitted to a magnetic force exerced by the magnet, but what is the medium to propagate that force? This force exists even if the magnet is in "vaccum".
--
-
Peace,
It is based on the Quantum vacuum. The lowest form of energy-level. There is no real vacuum. a nothingness. I will post something later to explain this.
-
Tay,
No worries about the analogy - they weren't that good anyway. The reason that experiment was exciting was because it verified Einstein's prediction of Quantum Entanglement. The flip-side of that is that Einstein actually tried to use the idea of entanglement to disprove quantum mechanics (playing the 'absurdity' card), because he hated the idea of the universe being based on probabilities.
We observe subatomic particles through electron microscopes/microscopes/x-ray microscopes. No matter which instrument we use, what it basically entails is probing the subatomic particle in question with our observant particle (electron, photon, xray, et al) so we can 'tell what's going on' from the rebounding observant particle. Basically, it's like trying to figure out that the 8 ball is round by hitting it with the white ball. This is pretty much the same way our eyes work - photons emitted from an object travels towards our retina, after which we can 'see' the object and discern the properties of the object from the resulting reaction in the retina. Except on a much smaller scale.
"What The Bleep Do We Know" is a very misleading movie; the part of it which is scientific is composed of out-of-context interviews and the rest is just cultish/mystic extreme interpretation of Quantum Theory with no bearing on reality. The electrons always 'exist'; before observation it exists as a wave-form, after observation it exists as a particle.
Someone,
Arnoldyasin's answer is right I think, although it's a conundrum because quantum vacuum is very jittery and light just seems to travel straight past it. The existence of the Ether right now is a very real possibility though; especially the Higg's field, which may finally explain why particles have mass.
-
Peace Neo,
I hope you didn't take offense, because that wasn't my intention with the laughing emoticon ---> rotfl
Actually, your delivery of the analogy was excellent. I just thought it was funny that "John" died in the end.The electrons always 'exist'; before observation it exists as a wave-form, after observation it exists as a particle.
So, the mere act of observation changes the substance of the electron? You're right, man, this quantum stuff is counter-intuitive.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace neo,
Quote
Arnoldyasin's answer is right I think, although it's a conundrum because quantum vacuum is very jittery and light just seems to travel straight past it. The existence of the Ether right now is a very real possibility though; especially the Higg's field, which may finally explain why particles have mass.Everything gets it's energy from the Quantum vacuum it seems so light doesn't pass it, as it uses it. And indeed the Higg's field shows that everything has resistance because it has to 'swim' through the field and this causes mass.
-
Peace Neo,
I hope you didn't take offense, because that wasn't my intention with the laughing emoticon ---> rotfl
Actually, your delivery of the analogy was excellent. I just thought it was funny that "John" died in the end.The electrons always 'exist'; before observation it exists as a wave-form, after observation it exists as a particle.
So, the mere act of observation changes the substance of the electron? You're right, man, this quantum stuff is counter-intuitive.
Peace,
TayDidn't take any offence at all; you'll find that I have quite thick skin. P Glad you liked the analogy.
And yeah, the mere act of observation (which is on a more fundemental level 'interaction', because a photon would be interacting with the electron) changes the subatomic particle. It makes sense if you use the pool analogy if you use the white ball to figure out the 8 ball's shape, the 8 ball's location will inevitably change.
Arnold,
Can you send me some references to verify your claims? It's not that I don't believe you - I just want to read up on it.
-
Peace,
I have most in books. I don't take information from the web that quickly. I'll see if i have something on my pc that contains this info. As for the Vacuum and light. The Vacuum is the lowest level of energy, we don't know anything lower. Everything above that level gets its energy from the field, and light is one of those. PM your email already in advance..
-
peace
I read something in Discover magazine last year.
It was about this guy (forgot his name but it started with a P) who has come up with this theory.
this is what I understood of it
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
this experiment (2 slits), when done with only 1 photon, still produces the pattern. Which means that it passes through both slits at the same time, and thus can exist in two places at once. They observed the same thing with small particles like electrons, even large molecules.
But obviously, large things like humans, planets, BMWs, do not do that.
He said that is because every particle has a gravitational field (bending space). To maintain that field, it needs energy. So for it to be in two places at once, it needs to have two gravitational fields as well.
Particles with low mass do not have a very big gravitational field, so they can exist in more than one place. Objects with big gravitational fields (like us) cannot.what do you think?
-
You don't need energy to 'maintain' a gravitational field, it's one of the quirks of existence. Just by existing you change the geometry of spacetime which causes said gravitational field.
Also, particles don't exist in two places at once - their waveforms do. 'Things', as you have it, display two states wave-like and particle-like. When 'things' are in its wave-form it can be thought to exist in 2 places at once (more accurately, distributed across the entire universe at once). 'Things' only exhibit their wave-like form when they are not interacting with any other 'thing' - this is the reason microscoping entities can exhibit wave-like existence and macroscopic entities do not. As far as I know this is the accepted theory of the wave/particle duality of matter and why macroscopic objects do not exhibit the wave-like properties. Frankly, the "too much gravity" doesn't make sense to me. Any macroscopic entity is made of billions of microscopic entities which should be able to in turn 'split' their own grav-field, therefore going by Mr. P's theory even macroscoping entities should display wave/particle duality - obviously they don't.