Anybody have ideas about the double slit experiement with particles, how they react based on a human mind observing them?

by EndofMysteries 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • adamah
    adamah

    BTEB, the funny thing about that photo is two humans had to agree to stage it (one to take the photo, one to get in the box), using the cat as the unwitting participant!

    I bet if we could read cat's mind, it'd be wondering WTF the humans were up to, this time.... I suspect our pets already KNOW the answer, but are playing dumb, being more amused by our struggling to comprehend, and laughing their asses off behind our backs.

    (And yet another hypothesis where no one can prove it's NOT the case, so everyone else MUST accept it to be so.)


    BTW, if anyone's got 50 minutes to spare, here's an interesting old video with Richard Feynmann explaining the double-slit experiment in a lecture at Cornell in 1962:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk

    Physics is interesting stuff, and it's almost impossible to get caught up in incorrect models of thought when trying to apply macroscopic experience to the , eg many people think of electricity as the flow of electrons within a matrix of copper atoms. We use the phrase, 'electrons flow down the wire' (at least, for DC circuits).

    While some electrons may leave one atom for a neighboring atom to displace the prior occupant(s), the flow of electricity largely occurs via transfer of the energy (which causes greater activity) to adjacent electrons, and it's the energy which passes down the line; it's not due to the electrons themselves flowing, as if electrons were riding on the white-water rapids of stationary copper atoms, but a transfer of energy contained in them. That's an insight that took a few years of studying electronics in college in a JC to get, since many people don't think about it; however, it's rather important to understanding what waves actually are.

    The spontaneous collapse of the probability wave function is interesting, but again, it's a case where terminology is critical, eg nothing "collapses" per se, but only that certain outcome is observed, or becomes fixed. The interference patterns observed in the study may appear like the classic interference patterns seen where water waves interact to form peaks and troughs, but that's the problem with analogies: they ALL break down, since an overlap of commonalities in one area doesn't mean in ALL characteristics. People may not even be aware of when they're carrying assumptions inappropriately from one model to another.

    Adam

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit