Panendeism.org

For the Promotion of Reason Based Spirituality...
 
HomeGalleryFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 Is god an "It"?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
stretmediq



Number of posts : 238
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:23 am

Here is an idea I had for an experiment to see if the world really did behave as if it were being observed. I included it in my book as an appendix. Not being a physicist I don't know if it's feasible or not though.

stretmediq wrote:
My “belief” in a “Prime Observer” (it’s really more of an opinion) is based on philosophical reasoning but the logic that allowed the construction of the model I present here also suggests that there may be a way to do something most regard as impossible - that is to obtain actual empirical evidence that the world is being observed. Unfortunately not being a scientist it is beyond my abilities to perform myself.

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.

For example, if one ray of light is passed through a beam splitter made of Icelandic feldspar, a mineral that possesses a property called double refraction, 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. If these two daughter beams are sent in different directions, they may both be tested for wavelength but what would happen if a particle detector was inserted into the path of one and the other beam remained in the frequency counter? Wouldn’t that permit the observer to know both position and frequency at the same time since the particle thus detected mirrors its twin in the other beam whose wavelength is known (a violation of the uncertainty principle that cannot be allowed)?

If the same procedure (which I call the “God” box experiment) were designed along the lines of that laid out in the Schrodinger’s Cat scenario, in which the researcher is shielded from the device eliminating him as an influence, it might allow the detection of an observation of the event, by recording the outcome for analysis later, because the beam not intercepted by the particle detector should vanish to avoid creating a paradox. Making note of the time of each event will also ensure the researcher did not collapse the wave himself when he opened the box to check the results (even in Schrodinger’s version you can estimate the time by observing the state of decomposition of the cat).

The test could be even further complicated by starting out with two or even more parent beams because it would be impossible to tell which of the resulting daughter beams constitute a pair by any observer, human or otherwise, on this “plane” (especially if they could be periodically “shuffled” after they emerge) and using a radioactive trigger to randomly drop a particle detector into the path of one of the daughter beams thus taking all control out of the hands of the researcher and making the specific outcome as uncertain as possible.

A positive result could imply an awareness above this level of existence that is able to “look down” into it and see what is happening. For just as a person on a bridge tossing pebbles into the water below may see all the ripples he creates in their entirety and can thus trace each wave back to it’s point of origin, despite the fact they intermingle as they spread, a “Prime Observer”, which has to know everything that is knowable, must also be able to see the light as a whole to keep the universe orderly (that is It would have to know which beams go together) thus allowing It to maintain the light in existence even if only in potential.

After all, if the individual steps are kept isolated from each other there would be no discernible physical connection of the type that would allow communication between them after they are split and the apparatus itself can only measure the properties of what “appears” to it as isolated photons and since those particles would all be identical if seen on the same level they themselves occupy, their point of origin should, it seems to me, remain uncertain to any observer on this plane (photons are massless so their position can’t be fixed by gravity either) and nothing would happen if this is all there is. Therefore, the only possible way I can think of for one of the beams to disappear after it has already left the beam splitter when it’s twin is intercepted by the particle detector is if knowledge of it’s frequency could be obtained from it and applied to it’s counterpart by a transcendent observer.

This would not be “proof” of a Prime Observer, just evidence. It would only show that the universe behaves as though it were being observed. But since I cannot rely on either the anthropic principle or the many worlds theory to explain such an outcome and the philosophical arguments are so compelling it seems the only reasonable conclusion.

I am not aware of any such experiment ever being conducted, which is disappointing as the results could be quite interesting. So until it is done I must base my conclusions solely on argument but I am comfortable with that- for now.

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?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
Paul Anthony

avatar

Number of posts : 253
Age : 70
Location: : Gilbert, Arizona
Registration date : 2007-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:30 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.voltairepress.com
stretmediq

avatar

Number of posts : 238
Age : 59
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:31 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
The Paineful Truth

avatar

Number of posts : 356
Location: : Arizona
Registration date : 2007-09-19

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:12 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......?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Gnomon
Moderator


Number of posts : 660
Location: : Birmingham, Alabama
Registration date : 2007-09-30

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:24 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. >>
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.enformationism.info/
stretmediq

avatar

Number of posts : 238
Age : 59
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
The Paineful Truth

avatar

Number of posts : 356
Location: : Arizona
Registration date : 2007-09-19

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:25 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?!?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
stretmediq

avatar

Number of posts : 238
Age : 59
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:40 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
The Paineful Truth

avatar

Number of posts : 356
Location: : Arizona
Registration date : 2007-09-19

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:51 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
stretmediq

avatar

Number of posts : 238
Age : 59
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:29 pm

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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Is god an "It"?   

Back to top Go down
 
Is god an "It"?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
 Similar topics
-
» One for the "erks"
» "Blaster" Bates
» "Tecky" - Becky
» STEPHEN "TITCH" MORLEY
» "Special" Eligibility Document

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Panendeism.org :: General Discussions :: Deism-
Jump to: