Is god an "It"?

Paul Anthony

Age : 61
Joined : 07 Oct 2007
Posts : 153
Location: : Arizona

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:30 pm

stretmediq wrote:

If the experiment were conducted it seems to me if one of the beams vanished it would be evidence against the transactional interpretation but if they didn't vanish it would support TI. The only way to know for sure would be to get someone to do the experiment. Anybody know a physicist?

I'm no physicist, but if it worked it would be evidence that communication between the beams existed. We still wouldn't know how that communication occurred, and it wouldn't necessarily be evidence of an intercessor.

stretmediq

Age : 49
Joined : 04 Oct 2007
Posts : 187
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:31 am

Paul Anthony wrote:

I'm no physicist, but if it worked it would be evidence that communication between the beams existed. We still wouldn't know how that communication occurred, and it wouldn't necessarily be evidence of an intercessor.

I agree it would not be a proof of anything but it would show that the universe is at least behaving as if it were being observed.

The Paineful Truth

Joined : 19 Sep 2007
Posts : 356
Location: : Arizona

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:12 am

Stret wrote:

Quote:

two identical beams should emerge because the crystals atomic structure works just like an interferometer except that it is capable of splitting the wave form of a single photon.

Uhhhhhh......?

Gnomon

Joined : 30 Sep 2007
Posts : 238
Location: : Birmingham, Alabama

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:24 pm

stretmediq wrote:

Quote:

The limitation on what the “Prime Observer” is capable of "knowing" may trouble some but I believe it is the key to the problem. Except for being transcendant (and thus not subject to Heisenberg's rule because It is not "in" the world) Natural Idealism defines the Prime Observer as an observer with all the restrictions of any other observer and, it seems to me, we may be able to take advantage of that fact. The experiment I propose, therefore, is an EPR test with a twist and is based on the uncertainty principal as it applies to light.

This is an interesting proposal, but I doubt that it would convince atheist quantum researchers. In recent years they have been trying to find ways to find an alternative to a conscious "observer" to collapse the wave function. Intuitively, I think you may be on to something, but as long as the "observer" interpretation itself is in question, the results will be moot. Hang in there though; the experiment ain't over til the fat observer blinks.

Wiki: <<Recent study of quantum decoherence casts new light onto the problem by reducing the importance of the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. >>

stretmediq

Age : 49
Joined : 04 Oct 2007
Posts : 187
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:25 pm

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Stret wrote:

Quote:

two identical beams should emerge because the crystals atomic structure works just like an interferometer except that it is capable of splitting the wave form of a single photon.

Uhhhhhh......?

Yep. A single photon.

Gnomon wrote:

stretmediq wrote:

Quote:

The limitation on what the “Prime Observer” is capable of "knowing" may trouble some but I believe it is the key to the problem. Except for being transcendant (and thus not subject to Heisenberg's rule because It is not "in" the world) Natural Idealism defines the Prime Observer as an observer with all the restrictions of any other observer and, it seems to me, we may be able to take advantage of that fact. The experiment I propose, therefore, is an EPR test with a twist and is based on the uncertainty principal as it applies to light.

This is an interesting proposal, but I doubt that it would convince atheist quantum researchers. In recent years they have been trying to find ways to find an alternative to a conscious "observer" to collapse the wave function. Intuitively, I think you may be on to something, but as long as the "observer" interpretation itself is in question, the results will be moot. Hang in there though; the experiment ain't over til the fat observer blinks.

Wiki: <<Recent study of quantum decoherence casts new light onto the problem by reducing the importance of the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. >>

In one of his stories Sherlock Holmes says that once you eliminate everything else whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be true.

I do not accept decoherence for the reasons stated in my essay The Paradox of Nothingness (basically because it seems to require the creation of an infinite number of universes from a finite amount of energy, to my mind an insurmountable problem). Nor do I accept the anthropic principle for reasons far too complex to post here but they include the infinite regression in particle interactions it seems to require, Einstein's grandfather paradox, as well as decoherence. Finally, also for reasons stated in my essay, I question the veracity of the materialistic philosophy they all depend on itself.

Therefore if this experiment is ever done and the results are what I think they will be I would have no choice but to assume the best interpretation is that the world is being observed. On the other hand if the results are negative I must accept them too and admit I am wrong. But until then all I have to go on is theory. And that seems to support the former.

As for what others believe thats up to them but it looks to me all they are really doing is what the geocentrists did by adding epicycles upon epicycles to make thier observations fit thier preconcieved notions the sun orbits the Earth instead of altering thier theory to fit thier observations which suggests it's actually the other way around.

The Paineful Truth

Joined : 19 Sep 2007
Posts : 356
Location: : Arizona

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:25 am

stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Stret wrote:

Quote:

two identical beams should emerge because the crystals atomic structure works just like an interferometer except that it is capable of splitting the wave form of a single photon.

Uhhhhhh......?

Yep. A single photon.

How do you split a photon, and if you can, then all the photons in the universe could be the same photon?!?

stretmediq

Age : 49
Joined : 04 Oct 2007
Posts : 187
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:40 am

The Paineful Truth wrote:

How do you split a photon, and if you can, then all the photons in the universe could be the same photon?!?

Its already been done. Basically its just a double slit experiment were the "slits" are of a size that match the frequency of the photon to be split. A light source set at an energy level that only permits the emission of one photon at a time is used to produce them.

Researchers that have actually done the experiment have reported that a photographic detector will record each photon as a single dot but the accumulation of many photons on the screen will build up an interference pattern indicative of a wave but speckled instead of smooth and spread out. That can only happen if there is uncertainty about which slit the photon went through. In other words the photon seems to travel as a wave, which allows it to be split, but collapses into a particle when it interacts with the screen. (Also the photon is of the same energy level after it passes through the slits as it was before which I think is evidence against decoherence which says two photons must be created from the original one to avoid uncertainty so shouldn't each of these supposed daughter particles have only half the energy of the parent one?)

As to the question is there only one photon there are some physicists in the past who have suggested that but I don't particularly agree with them. However the universe as a whole can be considered a single particle because it is, as Einstein showed, a single continuum of energy. I think looking at the universe as a vibrating particle in this way could resolve the apparent paradox that arises from the wave/particle view now prevalent in physics.

There is a book called The Cosmic Code by the physicist Heinz Pagels that explains it quite well but is a little dated.

The Paineful Truth

Joined : 19 Sep 2007
Posts : 356
Location: : Arizona

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:51 am

Quote:

That can only happen if there is uncertainty about which slit the photon went through.

Or if it interacts with itself backward in time.

If you truly split a photon in two, wouldn't it record two dots? If it just splits the wave in two, but only records one dot, that would seem to be more evidence for TI. In fact, under TI, it would send out offer waves in all directions but with only two possible acceptance paths with which it could "transact" it's one final actual path. IOW it's not splitting a wave, it's potential paths collapse into one of the possible wave paths.

stretmediq

Age : 49
Joined : 04 Oct 2007
Posts : 187
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.

Subject: Re: Is god an "It"?

Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:29 am

The Paineful Truth wrote:

If you truly split a photon in two, wouldn't it record two dots?

Nope just one. That could be considered evidence for TI I suppose but it could also be considered evidence the world is observed. But it seems to me to be incompatible with decoherence.