Reality is a Wavefunction

[sandy whitelinger]

- In Quantum Mechanics, all particles in the universe are described by a wavefunction.



- The particle properties such as position and momentum have no existence until they are observed.



- The higher amplitude of the wavefunction is the most probable location of the particle.



- The more knowledge we gain about a particle's position is determined by the sum of the waveforms of the wavefuntion.



- Less momentum of the particle is indicated by a longer wavelength of the waveforms.



- The combination of different waveforms give a new wavefunction who's sum equals the different waveforms.



- The wavefunction is described by a real component and an imaginary component.



- The specific energy levels of the wavefunction that are possible are referred to as the electron orbitals of the atom.



Thus we have the first real evidence for the existence of God.

You have a strange writing style and this only proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Ostronomos]

But that isn't the case. The collapse is produced from the interaction with *any* sufficiently complex environment. And no, the 'universal wave function' wouldn't be collapsed by God, but by any observation within.

Even so, observation is popularly contended to collapse the wavefunction. If the mere act of observation has such effects, then a God would indeed be implied to be the primary observer. I was reading the book The Quantum Labyrinth written by a Princeton professor and it stated that the wavefunction continuously evolves until an observation randomly collapses it in a linear fashion.

 

[Ostronomos]

I make no comment about the existence of God.

I think it is a misconception to think that our consciousness plays a passive role in existence despite your proposition about the wavefunction.

 

[Ostronomos]

You have a strange writing style and this only proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

There is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster but there is a God.

 

[sayak83]

Even so, observation is popularly contended to collapse the wavefunction. If the mere act of observation has such effects, then a God would indeed be implied to be the primary observer. I was reading the book The Quantum Labyrinth written by a Princeton professor and it stated that the wavefunction continuously evolves until an observation randomly collapses it in a linear fashion.

No. Observations are not required to collapse a wavefunction. Its an old idea that has been refuted by modern developments. Any interaction with a noisy environment collapses the wavefunction. In a lab setting, these interactions are usually the observation process, so experimental scientists still use that term for convenience.

 

[Ostronomos]

No. Observations are not required to collapse a wavefunction. Its an old idea that has been refuted by modern developments. Any interaction with a noisy environment collapses the wavefunction. In a lab setting, these interactions are usually the observation process, so experimental scientists still use that term for convenience.

Only the act of looking at a quantum object “collapses” its wave function, jolting it from a shadowy netherworld into definite reality.

https://landing.newscientist.com/department-for-education-feature-3/

 

[`mud]

hey Sayak,
I think you have that just about right !

 

[Polymath257]

Only the act of looking at a quantum object “collapses” its wave function, jolting it from a shadowy netherworld into definite reality.

https://landing.newscientist.com/department-for-education-feature-3/

Yes, there are a lot of really, really bad popularizations of quantum mechanics out there. This is one of them.

 

[Ostronomos]

You guys are obviously in denial of the spiritual implications of Quantum Mechanics. Probably because it would render your accepted materialist view shockingly wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

You guys are obviously in denial of the spiritual implications of Quantum Mechanics. Probably because it would render your accepted materialist view moot.

Not in denial of. We know enough QM to say there isn't a spiritual component.

 

[exchemist]

I think it is a misconception to think that our consciousness plays a passive role in existence despite your proposition about the wavefunction.

I have difficulty relating this statement to what either you or I have been saying.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster but there is a God.

A nice claim. Why should I believe it?

 

[exchemist]

You guys are obviously in denial of the spiritual implications of Quantum Mechanics. Probably because it would render your accepted materialist view shockingly wrong.

There aren't any. Those of us who actually learnt some QM realise that. It is nothing to do with metaphysical materialism. It is just the science.

 

[Polymath257]

Even so, observation is popularly contended to collapse the wavefunction. If the mere act of observation has such effects, then a God would indeed be implied to be the primary observer. I was reading the book The Quantum Labyrinth written by a Princeton professor and it stated that the wavefunction continuously evolves until an observation randomly collapses it in a linear fashion.

An old view that has been shown wrong. The subject of quantum decoherence is the relevant one here.

 

[Ostronomos]

Yes, there are a lot of really, really bad popularizations of quantum mechanics out there. This is one of them.

These so-called popularizations would suggest that public opinion has more power than scientific theory in deciding how to discriminate information. That is clearly a superficial perspective you're taking to support your argument.

 

[Ostronomos]

An old view that has been shown wrong. The subject of quantum decoherence is the relevant one here.

Do elaborate. I'm intrigued.

 

[Ostronomos]

Not in denial of. We know enough QM to say there isn't a spiritual component.

To say one knows enough QM is an appeal to authority since only those who have experience with the supernatural and who are intelligent can testify to the veracity of QM as a science having supernatural implications that are not mainstream or popular. Since the science underlies the explanation.

 

[Ostronomos]

Here is an explanation I'd like to introduce that clarifies the whole observation dilemma: https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-say-a-wave-function-collapses

 

[Polymath257]

These so-called popularizations would suggest that public opinion has more power than scientific theory in deciding how to discriminate information. That is clearly a superficial perspective you're taking to support your argument.

Well, you *should* discriminate based on scientific theory. But the view that consciousness co lapses wave functions is the public opinion version.

 

[Twilight Hue]

- In Quantum Mechanics, all particles in the universe are described by a wavefunction.



- The particle properties such as position and momentum have no existence until they are observed.



- The higher amplitude of the wavefunction is the most probable location of the particle.



- The more knowledge we gain about a particle's position is determined by the sum of the waveforms of the wavefuntion.



- Less momentum of the particle is indicated by a longer wavelength of the waveforms.



- The combination of different waveforms give a new wavefunction who's sum equals the different waveforms.



- The wavefunction is described by a real component and an imaginary component.



- The specific energy levels of the wavefunction that are possible are referred to as the electron orbitals of the atom.



Thus we have the first real evidence for the existence of God.

So what kind of equipment and controls would be required to conduct an experiment from what you mentioned?