Quantum Universe

by undercover 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  crashfire451

  'Doppleganger'.
  
  Thank god you cleared that up. 'Double Ganger' had me headed to the Adult Video Megaplex to see a man about a video....
• 

  Terry

  The dimensions only exist in space which as you say is 'imaginary'. Again, do you agree that these facts raise questions about the nature of our physical reality?

  Physical reality is "real" enough. We can measure it so well a rocket can be launched to a far distant speck in the night sky and reach the bullseye. What is in question is our rational evaluation of everyday reality and how we love to flavor it with our wishes, dreams and desires to make it taste better.
• 

  Terry

  Terry and jst2laws are already beyond me. I understand what they're saying and it is helpful, thank you guys. Their thoughts are well demonstrated and illustrated but I could never formulate the ideas that they have, let alone put them into words that others could understand.

  Me either!!
• 

  stapler99

  Is reality real? I don't think that's a meaningful question. All an individual can do is evaluate the information that comes to them through their senses, and try and predict what they will experience in the future, depending on various courses of action that that individual might take.

  So in this predictive process we form models, representing what we believe the world around us to consist of. Before the development of quantum theory it was believed that if we had enough knowledge about a certain domain of reality, (reality defined as that domain that we model in our minds, to which our predictive processes may be applied) then we could predict to a very high degree of accuracy certain aspects of that part of reality. For example we may have thought that if we know the "position" and "velocity" of a set of particles which interact, we could predict exactly the behaviour of these particles.

  Quantum mechanics gives us a different model of the world from the one which we're used to. One in which concepts such as "position", or "momentum" are slightly different. Saying that a particle is in two different places at once needs no longer bother us after we have realised there is not really such a thing as "position". And "energy" and "mass" are again just concepts, which we use to model the universe. They are only useful insofar as they can make predictions.

  In quantum mechanics one can assign to various objects mathematical functions, which represent our knowledge about that object. These functions represent the probablities of gettting certain results when one observes the objects further. I don't think that this ideas of "parallel universes" is something that can be proven or disproven, but if it helps you to understand the theory, you might imagine that at the point of observation the universe splits into universes in which each of these observations were made.

  The interesting thing is that different observers who have made different observations have different mathematical functions representing (each's model of) reality. Hence two observers may, to each other, be in a state of quantum superposition, even though they are actually both conscious beings. Whether they exist in parallel universes, or questions like whether we can know if other people are conscious or not, are questions which are impossible to answer, and it is questionful whether they are meaningful. (Depending on how you define meaningful...)
• 

  stevenyc

  What a great thread. I've started studying Calculus again, as I have an interest in Quantum Physics, but, at some point, you need the math.
  
  One of the greatest physicists so far, Richard Feynman, put it this way: "If anyone says they understand quantum physics, they don't understand quantum physics."
  
  I wound recommend anyone with an interest in quantum theory to read his lectures. He had an amazing ability to explain the most complex things to the layman. QED is a good place to start. Also, you can find his lecture for QED at the university of Auckland, NZ, site.
  
  steve
• 

  stevenyc

  My guess would be your friend is referring to this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
  
  A recent submission to Nature on how "reality" only exists as a product of observation.
  
  Although this sounds wrong and kooky, I would recommend the wiki on the "two slit experiment" as an example of how quantum mechanics experiments yield unexpected results.
  
  steve