Physicists Just Found a New Quantum Paradox That Casts Doubt on a Pillar of Reality

[oldbadger]

that would blow off many things religious people believe in

walking on water
feeding thousands with no apparent resources
the lame walk
the blind see
storms vanish with a wave of the hand
wine into water

and I believe in Spirit
First
substance as creation

must have taken some thought to get all of this....stuff.....in motion

I'm not sure about miracle 3 above, but all the others can be explained, I think. So chances are that the lot could have happened, just that the reporting went askew over time.

As for 'quantam paradox', I'll just read on......

 

[shunyadragon]

I find it quite a challenge to explain-away the double-slit experiments without suggesting the importance of an observer. That is exactly what the experiment was designed to determine! Passive observation should be irrelevant in the materialist model of reality. But it's not in this experiment.

The trend in contemporary physics is to negate the importance of the 'observer,' and just consider them as observations from the human perspective. Recent research has provided a much better explanation of Quantum Mechanics and particle behavior.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think Albert Einstein was the first person to say that we're experiencing a "grand illusion". Ever since then, physicists and deep thinkers have been trying to figure out what they cannot observe that they call "dark matter". They still haven't figured out what they think they can see so it's impossible for them to understand what they cannot possibly see such as the Voice and Image of our FATHER.

There is no effort by the scientists to falsify nor explain anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence for hypothesis and theories about our physical existence. Theological questions such as the existence and nature of God are outside the realms of science. Arguing from ignorance like the above is a fallacy and not productive.

Actually the nature of 'dark matter and energy' is slowly being better understood, as in the research like the following. If course, there are many unknowns, but that is the nature of the frontiers of science.

Mysterious dark matter: New aspect revealed by Hubble images - CNN

The quest for dark matter just got a little more interesting.

While stars, planets and other celestial bodies may seem like bright jewels that stand out against the dark void of space, they only make up a small percentage of the universe.
In reality, the elusive and invisible dark matter that provides the universe with its structure accounts for most of the universe's mass.
Scientists know that because of dark matter's gravitational influence on the other things that are visible, like clusters of galaxies. These clusters are some of the largest structures in the universe, and they contain a multitude of individual galaxies.

These formations also contain a lot of dark matter -- not only because it binds them together, but because the individual galaxies they're comprised of contain dark matter, too.
Dark matter can't be seen because it doesn't interact with other particles in space or emit, absorb or reflect light.


The world's largest digital camera could unlock mysteries of the universe
If we could see dark matter, it might look like what researchers call the cosmic web -- essentially interconnected filamentary scaffolding where galaxies can form.

Astronomers have searched for these mysterious particles for decades. But the only way dark matter has revealed itself so far is through its gravitational tug.
So, one of the ways astronomers can detect dark matter is through gravitational lensing, in which gravity essentially distorts space. This occurs when the gravity of dark matter in a galaxy cluster acts like a magnifying glass. It warps and magnifies the light of distant background galaxies beyond the cluster.


Hubble Space Telescope celebrates 30 years of discoveries and awe-inspiring images
Now, astronomers have discovered that smaller clumps of dark matter, associated with individual cluster galaxies, were concentrated enough to produce gravitational lensing effects that were 10 times stronger than expected.
Using the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile, the scientists detected these distortions by studying 11 massive galaxy clusters.
The detail afforded by both telescopes showed small, distorted images of distant galaxies within larger gravitational lensing distortion in the core of each galaxy cluster. The small distortions look like arcs and smears in images taken by the telescopes.

This Hubble Space Telescope image shows massive galaxy cluster called MACS J1206. Within this cluster are distorted images of distant background galaxies. They look like arcs and smears.
These small aberrations could be created by densely concentrated pockets of dark matter in individual cluster galaxies, the researchers suggested.
This finding surprised astronomers because it differs from their theoretical models about the distribution of dark matter in galaxy clusters.


NASA names Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope in honor of agency's first chief astronomer
The study published Friday in the journal Science.
"Galaxy clusters are ideal laboratories to understand if computer simulations of the universe reliably reproduce what we can infer about dark matter and its interplay with luminous matter," said Massimo Meneghetti, lead study author and adjunct professor at the National Institute for Astrophysics -- Observatory of Astrophysics and Space Science of Bologna in Italy, in a statement.
"We have done a lot of careful testing in comparing the simulations and data in this study, and our finding of the mismatch persists. One possible origin for this discrepancy is that we may be missing some key physics in the simulations."


Another mysterious radio burst in space is repeating a pattern. This one occurs every 157 days
The detail that Hubble can capture allowed the researchers to map out the dark matter present in the clusters. The data also allowed them to estimate the mass of each galaxy, which included the amount of dark matter.
When these maps were compared with simulated galaxy clusters of similar mass and distance, the amount of dark matter didn't match up on the smaller scale -- the dark matter associated with individual cluster galaxies.
Future missions like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, set to launch in the mid-2020s, will use gravitational lensing of large galaxy clusters to find even more distant galaxies. That data can then be used in dark matter models.
"There's a feature of the real universe that we are simply not capturing in our current theoretical models," said Priyamvada Natarajan, senior theorist on the research team and theoretical astrophysicist at Yale University, in a statement.
"This could signal a gap in our current understanding of the nature of dark matter and its properties, as these exquisite data have permitted us to probe the detailed distribution of dark matter on the smallest scales."

 

[IAMinyou]

There is no effort by the scientists to falsify nor explain anything beyond the objective verifiable evidence for hypothesis and theories about our physical existence. Theological questions such as the existence and nature of God are outside the realms of science. Arguing from ignorance like the above is a fallacy and not productive.

Actually the nature of 'dark matter and energy' is slowly being better understood, as in the research like the following. If course, there are many unknowns, but that is the nature of the frontiers of science.

Mysterious dark matter: New aspect revealed by Hubble images - CNN

The quest for dark matter just got a little more interesting.

While stars, planets and other celestial bodies may seem like bright jewels that stand out against the dark void of space, they only make up a small percentage of the universe.
In reality, the elusive and invisible dark matter that provides the universe with its structure accounts for most of the universe's mass.
Scientists know that because of dark matter's gravitational influence on the other things that are visible, like clusters of galaxies. These clusters are some of the largest structures in the universe, and they contain a multitude of individual galaxies.

These formations also contain a lot of dark matter -- not only because it binds them together, but because the individual galaxies they're comprised of contain dark matter, too.
Dark matter can't be seen because it doesn't interact with other particles in space or emit, absorb or reflect light.


The world's largest digital camera could unlock mysteries of the universe
If we could see dark matter, it might look like what researchers call the cosmic web -- essentially interconnected filamentary scaffolding where galaxies can form.

Astronomers have searched for these mysterious particles for decades. But the only way dark matter has revealed itself so far is through its gravitational tug.
So, one of the ways astronomers can detect dark matter is through gravitational lensing, in which gravity essentially distorts space. This occurs when the gravity of dark matter in a galaxy cluster acts like a magnifying glass. It warps and magnifies the light of distant background galaxies beyond the cluster.


Hubble Space Telescope celebrates 30 years of discoveries and awe-inspiring images
Now, astronomers have discovered that smaller clumps of dark matter, associated with individual cluster galaxies, were concentrated enough to produce gravitational lensing effects that were 10 times stronger than expected.
Using the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile, the scientists detected these distortions by studying 11 massive galaxy clusters.
The detail afforded by both telescopes showed small, distorted images of distant galaxies within larger gravitational lensing distortion in the core of each galaxy cluster. The small distortions look like arcs and smears in images taken by the telescopes.

This Hubble Space Telescope image shows massive galaxy cluster called MACS J1206. Within this cluster are distorted images of distant background galaxies. They look like arcs and smears.
These small aberrations could be created by densely concentrated pockets of dark matter in individual cluster galaxies, the researchers suggested.
This finding surprised astronomers because it differs from their theoretical models about the distribution of dark matter in galaxy clusters.


NASA names Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope in honor of agency's first chief astronomer
The study published Friday in the journal Science.
"Galaxy clusters are ideal laboratories to understand if computer simulations of the universe reliably reproduce what we can infer about dark matter and its interplay with luminous matter," said Massimo Meneghetti, lead study author and adjunct professor at the National Institute for Astrophysics -- Observatory of Astrophysics and Space Science of Bologna in Italy, in a statement.
"We have done a lot of careful testing in comparing the simulations and data in this study, and our finding of the mismatch persists. One possible origin for this discrepancy is that we may be missing some key physics in the simulations."


Another mysterious radio burst in space is repeating a pattern. This one occurs every 157 days
The detail that Hubble can capture allowed the researchers to map out the dark matter present in the clusters. The data also allowed them to estimate the mass of each galaxy, which included the amount of dark matter.
When these maps were compared with simulated galaxy clusters of similar mass and distance, the amount of dark matter didn't match up on the smaller scale -- the dark matter associated with individual cluster galaxies.
Future missions like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, set to launch in the mid-2020s, will use gravitational lensing of large galaxy clusters to find even more distant galaxies. That data can then be used in dark matter models.
"There's a feature of the real universe that we are simply not capturing in our current theoretical models," said Priyamvada Natarajan, senior theorist on the research team and theoretical astrophysicist at Yale University, in a statement.
"This could signal a gap in our current understanding of the nature of dark matter and its properties, as these exquisite data have permitted us to probe the detailed distribution of dark matter on the smallest scales."

They have absolutely no idea what they're looking at when they peer into the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

They have absolutely no idea what they're looking at when they peer into the universe.

They are looking at the universe.

 

[George-ananda]

The trend in contemporary physics is to negate the importance of the 'observer,' and just consider them as observations from the human perspective. Recent research has provided a much better explanation of Quantum Mechanics and particle behavior.

So still no one can explain what is going on in that Double-Slit experiment video I presented earlier.

As to contemporary physics I see two competing schools. One side doesn't like the inclusion of observation being a player in quantum mechanics because it grates against the way they want to think of the universe (in a mechanical way). The other school I'll call post-materialist physics goes all the way and believes consciousness is fundamental and the physical is a derivative of consciousness, This school accepts the understanding that conscious observation is a player in quantum mechanics.

I personally believe the post-materialist view is the one on the right track. In fact this entire universe is a thought-form of Brahman/God/Consciousness/Source playing out. The double-slit experiment is just a suggestion that the mechanical understanding of reality is not the full picture.

 

[shunyadragon]

So still no one can explain what is going on in that Double-Slit experiment video I presented earlier.

Your 'arguing from ignorance.' I believe that yes science has a better understanding what is going on even though not all questions are answered. I have cited advances in QM in the past like the imaging of Quantum particles, and other advances in science, which do give greater explanations than in the past.

For example this thread: Quantum Mechanics becomes less mysterious.

As to contemporary physics I see two competing schools. One side doesn't like the inclusion of observation being a player in quantum mechanics because it grates against the way they want to think of the universe (in a mechanical way). The other school I'll call post-materialist physics goes all the way and believes consciousness is fundamental and the physical is a derivative of consciousness, This school accepts the understanding that conscious observation is a player in quantum mechanics.

I do not believe either of these options explain the contemporary view and advance in Quantum Mechanics

I personally believe the post-materialist view is the one on the right track. In fact this entire universe is a thought-form of Brahman/God/Consciousness/Source playing out. The double-slit experiment is just a suggestion that the mechanical understanding of reality is not the full picture.

This would not be science, but a very subjective philosophical perspective.

 

[George-ananda]

Your 'arguing from ignorance.' I believe that yes science has a better understanding what is going on even though not all questions are answered. I have cited advances in QM in the past like the imaging of Quantum particles, and other advances in science, which do give greater explanations than in the past.

Have you ever watched the video I was referring to (post #21)? You must admit you can't explain why the addition of the observer affected things, but it did.

The video is not concluding anything but making the counter-intuitive behavior of the system clear. You may be able to speculate other theories but you can not dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever watched the video I was referring to (post #21)? You must admit you can't explain why the addition of the observer affected things, but it did.

The video is not concluding anything but making the counter-intuitive behavior of the system clear. You may be able to speculate other theories but you can not dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function'.

I do not base my conclusions on speculation. Yes I dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function' based on recent research, as in the thread I cited, and will cite other references. The ability to directly image Quantum particles does take a lot of the mystery out of Quantum Mechanics.

Did you read the thread I cited? It is not just a video it is actual peer reviewed research?

Layman articles like what was cited starting this thread represents a third party speculative article of no particular value.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not base my conclusions on speculation. Yes I dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function' based on recent research, as in the thread I cited, and will cite other references. The ability to directly image Quantum particles does take a lot of the mystery out of Quantum Mechanics.

Did you read the thread I cited? It is not just a video it is actual peer reviewed research?

Layman articles like what was cited starting this thread represents a third party speculative article of no particular value.

And then I can cite physicists and articles from the consciousness school of thought and forever we can go.

 

[atanu]

Have you ever watched the video I was referring to (post #21)? You must admit you can't explain why the addition of the observer affected things, but it did.

The video is not concluding anything but making the counter-intuitive behavior of the system clear. You may be able to speculate other theories but you can not dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function'.

Mathematically, entanglement explains collapse, without any need to incorporate consciousness. See, consciousness does not enter into any physical equation.

But this does lead to absurd unprovable many world scenario. Some scientists have pointed out that even behind the entanglement stands the fact of intentionality or aboutness.

...

 

[George-ananda]

Mathematically, entanglement explains collapse, without any need to incorporate consciousness. See, consciousness does not enter into any physical equation.

But this does lead to absurd unprovable many world scenario. Some scientists have pointed out that even behind the entanglement stands the fact of intentionality or aboutness.

...

OK, but the mystery of adding an observer in the double-slit experiment is unsolved right? Sure suggests observation affects things.

 

[shunyadragon]

And then I can cite physicists and articles from the consciousness school of thought and forever we can go.

I cite cutting edge contemporary research, and I will cite more. I am not fan of consciousness schools? beyond presenting a philosophical perspective.

Please cite contemporary peer reviewed research, and not opinions about what is unknown, that supports your position.

 

[shunyadragon]

Mathematically, entanglement explains collapse, without any need to incorporate consciousness. See, consciousness does not enter into any physical equation.

But this does lead to absurd unprovable many world scenario. Some scientists have pointed out that even behind the entanglement stands the fact of intentionality or aboutness.

...

I do not believe the many worlds scenario stands well today. Yrs multi universes are likely based our present knowledge.

 

[ratiocinator]

OK, but the mystery of adding an observer in the double-slit experiment is unsolved right? Sure suggests observation affects things.

But it isn't adding a conscious observer that makes the difference, it's the adding of a detector or measuring device. You can't passively observe a single electron or photon, you have to add a device that interacts with it in some way and stores the information. The eyeball in the cartoon you posted is actually misleading.

 

[George-ananda]

But it isn't adding a conscious observer that makes the difference, it's the adding of a detector or measuring device.

But why should a passive observation device affect anything? And maybe it doesn't until the conscious observer is added. Hmm.

You can't passively observe a single electron or photon, you have to add a device that interacts with it in some way and stores the information. The eyeball in the cartoon you posted is actually misleading.

Are you claiming the passive detection device is doing something that is not passive? An eyeball of a conscious entity then looks at the passive detection device's results. Still nothing should be affected, right? But it changes to particle behavior. What/Why?

 

[wellwisher]

Another way to look at this quantum paradox, is connected to the nature of mind and theory. A theory is an explanation that helps us define our expectations of reality. Theory starts as a union between inside snd outside the mind, and is connected to consciousness.

If the theory is not 100% correct; too empirical or too statistical, when you try to run experiments to meet extrapolated expectations, the "real 100% theory" of the future, that is still unknown, may apply and will cause unexpected deviations from what you expected with the lessor theory.

As an example, at one time it was thought the earth was flat. That flat earth theory helped to shape and define exceptions for many generations of scientists and laymen. Say a scientist from that past, whole heartedly accepted that premise, so he could move up the company ladder. To make a contribution to the cause, he then reasoned, since we all know the earth is flat, their must be an edge, a cliff or even waterfall at the end of the earth.

To test his inference, he and his team ride horseback to the end of the earth, only to find that they return back to where they started. His flat earth experiment, which started out reasonable, made the flat earth that he knew and loved, become spherical. In the end, the actually of the round earth change the results of his experiment, in spite of different collective exceptions generated by the flat earth theory.

At the quantum level one is dealing with virtual particles and uncertainty, which are not exactly rational, but a subjective and rational hybrid theory for the mind. There is plenty of room for altering expectations, down the rational path of a better unknown future theory. The paradox works better, if nothing changes in terms of moving the foundation theories forward, but rather the bureaucracy doubles down to prevent modernization.

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you claiming the passive detection device is doing something that is not passive?

I'm saying that there is simply no such thing as a passive detection device when it comes to a single particle. In order to detect a particle something needs to interact with it. You can passively detect macro scale objects because they are generally interacting with photons (there is some light that lets you see them) but just sending a single photon to detect (or not) a single election, entangles its state with that of the electron, and it appears to be the act of magnifying that up to the macro scale that leads to a "measurement". The conscious experimenters may well of left things running automatically and just gone down the pub, but the measurement nevertheless that makes the difference.

 

[MNoBody]

so, in a universe where the observer affects the outcome in some manner, merely by being involved,
even if ostensibly "undetected",
what does that then imply in a world obsessed with surveillance of others due to unfounded suspicions or slanderous opinionation [the hung jury]?

 

[shunyadragon]

But why should a passive observation device affect anything? And maybe it doesn't until the conscious observer is added. Hmm.

Are you claiming the passive detection device is doing something that is not passive?

No, it effects nothing, and is simply old equipment and limited in its ability to observe Quantum behavior.

An eyeball of a conscious entity then looks at the passive detection device's results. Still nothing should be affected, right? But it changes to particle behavior. What/Why?

By the most contemporary research as cited nothing is effected nor is particle behavior changed. Regardless the outdated observations in the past are biased by the limitations of the equipment and human observations. Your neglecting the most contemporary research and only cite old outdated videos that have been around too long.