# Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)



## Times Roman (Mar 28, 2013)

So I've been chatting about this with another bloke, and so maybe we can talk about it here.

It's interesting that (quantum) physics and meta physics will actually converge into something that can be rationally discussed.  There are many in the scientific community that sincerely believe that the "act" of observing affects the universe, that consciousness is an intergral part of the universe, and the universe would not exist without consciousness.  In other words, both are dependent on the other.


Wouldn't it be interesting if "God" were nothing more than a being expressed in higher dimensions? You know, anything displaying properties in four (4) dimensions reigns supreme over anything expressed in fewer dimensions. 

This is intended to be a conversation opener, and a subject of huge interest to me.


----------



## trim (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

probably the least funniest joke yet


----------



## Tilltheend (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

The act of observing does effect the universe. The person being "matter" and just being there effects it somewhat. Them observing creates something inside their brain that causes them to learn or react a certain way in the future. I believe the universe would exist without consciousness, that reminds me of the old saying, if a tree falls down in the forrest with noone to hear it does it make a sound, well sure it does, their just aren't any ears to pick up the sound waves.


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Tilltheend said:


> The act of observing does effect the universe. The person being "matter" and just being there effects it somewhat. Them observing creates something inside their brain that causes them to learn or react a certain way in the future. I believe the universe would exist without consciousness, that reminds me of the old saying, if a tree falls down in the forrest with noone to hear it does it make a sound, well sure it does, their just aren't any ears to pick up the sound waves.



Actually, there are many in the scientific community that believe the universe couuld not be without an observer!


----------



## Tilltheend (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> Actually, there are many in the scientific community that believe the universe couuld not be without an observer!



Why is that?


----------



## Curiosity (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

It is a fact of quantum mechanics that a quantum system changes fundamentally when it is observed. There are too many experiments proving this for anyone familiar with the theory to not accept this as fact. This is a difficult discussion to have in snippets on a forum, as there have been books and books written on the subject, and it requires a familiarity with quantum theory and modern theoretical physics in general.

But yes, it is absolutely true, that particles behave differently when they're being measured or observed than when they are not. And from this, one can easily expand the notion to believe that anything in the physical world is changed by the act of observation. Until it is observed, any physical system exists only as a probability wave.

Also, observing a quantum particle that is in your local space can and does change the properties of quantum particles that are huge distances away instantly, thus defying the "no faster than light communication" axiom of the theory of relativity. 

If this sounds crazy, it  should, because its contradictory to everything else you've ever learned about the physical world. However, it is completely true, and countless experiments have confirmed it. 

I really enjoyed the book "quantum reality" by Nick Herbert, here's a link to a blurb about it from his website: 

http://www2.cruzio.com/~quanta/qreality1.html


----------



## PFM (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> Actually, there are many in the scientific community that believe the universe couuld not be without an observer!



Nothing like shooting a nice load while she watches.......so yes PFM agrees to some extent.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

I am banning everyone from this thread except Times and Tilly.


----------



## hulksmash (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

Well if I weren't rusty with perception, a priori, etc I'd jump in.

That's more existential discussion rather than scientific theory discussion tho


----------



## 63Vette (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

What was the punch line? Did he fuck her???

Respect,
Vette


----------



## ken Sass (Mar 28, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> So I've been chatting about this with another bloke, and so maybe we can talk about it here.
> 
> It's interesting that (quantum) physics and meta physics will actually converge into something that can be rationally discussed.  There are many in the scientific community that sincerely believe that the "act" of observing affects the universe, that consciousness is an intergral part of the universe, and the universe would not exist without consciousness.  In other words, both are dependent on the other.
> 
> ...


a discussion on quantization mechanics??? wrong crowd bro


----------



## RISE (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

I dig this shit, anyone have any good book recommendations?  I saw yours curiosity, I'll deff pick that up.


----------



## NbleSavage (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

In conclusion, will I get "Brad Pitt Shredded" if I run meta-quantum tren and can I still get drunk on the weekends? My diet is on-point, Bro...


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Curiosity said:


> It is a fact of quantum mechanics that a quantum system changes fundamentally when it is observed. There are too many experiments proving this for anyone familiar with the theory to not accept this as fact. This is a difficult discussion to have in snippets on a forum, as there have been books and books written on the subject, and it requires a familiarity with quantum theory and modern theoretical physics in general.
> 
> But yes, it is absolutely true, that particles behave differently when they're being measured or observed than when they are not. And from this, one can easily expand the notion to believe that anything in the physical world is changed by the act of observation. Until it is observed, any physical system exists only as a probability wave.
> 
> ...



There are only three (3) things FTL (faster than light) as far as I know of:

1)  Quantum entanglement - what you are referring to Curiosity.  Two entangled particles can be light years away, but what happens to one effects the other, INSTANTLY!

2)  The Big Expansion immediately after the Big Bang.  Space/Time expended faster than light for a brief period.

3)  Tachyons - theoritical FTL particles that are believed to move backwards in time,  and therefore do NOT eminate from the BB (Big Bang, sorry, not body builder) but possibly the big crunch or some other catyclismic event in the future.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



trim said:


> probably the least funniest joke yet



Yes my turtle friend he is going straight to hell for this.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



ken said:


> a discussion on quantization mechanics??? wrong crowd bro



Your right again Ken, this isnt exactly a Think Tank.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



PillarofBalance said:


> I am banning everyone from this thread except Times and Tilly.



You might go to hell too before sundown.


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Curiosity said:


> It is a fact of quantum mechanics that a quantum system changes fundamentally when it is observed. There are too many experiments proving this for anyone familiar with the theory to not accept this as fact. This is a difficult discussion to have in snippets on a forum, as there have been books and books written on the subject, and it requires a familiarity with quantum theory and modern theoretical physics in general.
> 
> But yes, it is absolutely true, that particles behave differently when they're being measured or observed than when they are not. And from this, one can easily expand the notion to believe that anything in the physical world is changed by the act of observation. Until it is observed, any physical system exists only as a probability wave.
> 
> ...





BigGameHunter said:


> Your right again Ken, this isnt exactly a Think Tank.



don't let the typical stereo type fool you, I've known some extremely intelligent and educated individuals on these bulletin boards

most here are usually here to learn, albeit about bodybuilding and such, but still here to learn.  That's more than i can say for 95% of the individuals I see in the gym that think a snickers bar is a good PWO food, and that there is no need to train legs since when you wear pants, you can't see em anyways?


----------



## NbleSavage (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> don't let the typical stereo type fool you, I've known some extremely intelligent and educated individuals on these bulletin boards
> 
> most here are usually here to learn, albeit about bodybuilding and such, but still here to learn.  That's more than i can say for 95% of the individuals I see in the gym that think a snickers bar is a good PWO food, and that there is no need to train legs since when you wear pants, you can't see em anyways?



I like this attitude, Mate. I'm actually very intrigued by this subject but my problem stems from most people seeking to discuss it end-up uttering some comment like "...and then you complete the calculus..." about 10 minutes in and I have to repress my desire to punch them in the throat.

I'd love to hear a layman's explanation of a concept like quantum entanglement if that's not a paradoxical request.


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



NbleSavage said:


> I like this attitude, Mate. I'm actually very intrigued by this subject but my problem stems from most people seeking to discuss it end-up uttering some comment like "...and then you complete the calculus..." about 10 minutes in and I have to repress my desire to punch them in the throat.
> 
> I'd love to hear a layman's explanation of a concept like quantum entanglement if that's not a paradoxical request.



Whew!  In lay terms... ok, let me give this a stab

how particles become entangled can be just as interesting as what happens to them after they are entangled.  One way a particle may become entangled is when one particle decays into two particles, and each new particle has an opposing spin.  At this point, they are "entangled" because what happens to one effects the other.  For example, if you change the spin of one, it will affect the spin of the other. Stop the spin of one, and the other stops as well.  Now this occurs "instantly", which really means, as far as we can tell, is 10,000 times the speed of light.  And this also occurs over large distances.  Why this happens we don't really know.  We know "what" happens, but not "why" it happens.  The universe of quantum mechanics is very strange indeed!


----------



## BigGameHunter (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

Point taken Ive been wanting to say Think Tank for a couple of weeks now.  Out of my system.


----------



## 63Vette (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

Solitary confinement. Now THAT'S a think tank.....


Respect,
Vette


----------



## dj920 (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> 3)  Nutrinos - theoritical FTL particles that are believed to move backwards in time,  and therefore do NOT eminate from the BB (Big Bang, sorry, not body builder) but possibly the big crunch or some other catyclismic event in the future.



Neutrinos have been detected numerous times.  But my understanding is that the couple recent anomalous cases of measurements suggesting FTL neutrinos have been pretty thoroughly debunked.

(_Tachyons_, on the other hand, are theoretical and always FTL.)


----------



## Yaya (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*

i will pray to jesus tonight.... hopefully the answer hits my heart by morning


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



63Vette said:


> Solitary confinement. Now THAT'S a think tank.....
> 
> 
> Respect,
> Vette



touche   !


----------



## NbleSavage (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



Times Roman said:


> Whew!  In lay terms... ok, let me give this a stab
> 
> how particles become entangled can be just as interesting as what happens to them after they are entangled.  One way a particle may become entangled is when one particle decays into two particles, and each new particle has an opposing spin.  At this point, they are "entangled" because what happens to one effects the other.  For example, if you change the spin of one, it will affect the spin of the other. Stop the spin of one, and the other stops as well.  Now this occurs "instantly", which really means, as far as we can tell, is 10,000 times the speed of light.  And this also occurs over large distances.  Why this happens we don't really know.  We know "what" happens, but not "why" it happens.  The universe of quantum mechanics is very strange indeed!



Best explanation I've heard and you anticipated my follow-up question too: WHY does this happen? (answer - we have no f'ing idea; that's why it's so cool  )

Thanks Mate!


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 29, 2013)

*Re: Today's thoughts on quantum/meta physics............ (aren't you excited?)*



dj920 said:


> Neutrinos have been detected numerous times.  But my understanding is that the couple recent anomalous cases of measurements suggesting FTL neutrinos have been pretty thoroughly debunked.
> 
> (_Tachyons_, on the other hand, are theoretical and always FTL.)



My bad.  I meant tachyons.  Damn i'm getting old.....................................


----------

