Regarding the photon Yes, it's an electron that gets used in the
experiment. I skipped over a lot because I was on a bit of a
rambling high when I was writing the other day, which is why I
didn't make much sense. What I was referring to with the photon
is two things: 1) that the uncertainty principle asks, "Is it a
particle or a wave? Is it both? When does a wave become a
particle, or a particle become a wave?" This is the famous
"wave-function collapse" -- where the series of probabilities
(all the potential places that a particle/wave in the quantum
state might potentially be) "collapses" down to one, single
possibility. It collapses upon observation. BUT *what* is
"observation"? 2) The photon comes into play because of this: To
observe, to measure, a photon is required. Why is a photon
required? A photon is the tiniest flashlight. Light must be
reflected off of something for it to be seen. But in the process
of seeing it, it changes its direction or forces it to reveal
just one possibility, rather than the large set of probabilities
it had BEFORE measurement took place. Pre-measurement=wave form.
Post-measurment= particle form. It knocks the baseball out of
its arc. What it means, to me, is the experiments themselves are
not the correct type of experiments that are required in order
for the particles to be seen as waves and particles at the same
time. We don't know how yet, and perhaps it isn't possible to
really measure, except indirectly through quantum entanglement
(where two particles share the same quantum spin. They continue
to share that same quantum spin no matter where they are in the
universe. Observe one as a particle and the other as a wave, and
you have an approximation of location AND direction at the same
time. The idea of a conscious observer being required for the
universe to work is absurd. Many-worlds theory (which is one of
the most popular interpretations of quantum uncertainty) gives
us great TV shows like Sliders and the like, but doesn't make
any sense. Every possibility that COULD happen, DOES happen,
creating a new universe each time a decision is made? That puts
US FIRMLY at the center of the universe - a giant ego trip. Why
should our decisions be so darned important? If all humanity or
even all conscious beings - or even if all LIFE ITSELF was to be
extinguished in the Universe right now, would the universe
continue without it? Yes. I believe so Here's the same question
posed in a different way a long time ago: "If a tree falls in
the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a
sound?" Well, does sound require a listener? I used to answer
that question, thinking I was so clever, by saying, "Ah, but
what if you make a recording of it remotely and listen to it
later?" I thought I was clever until one day someone pointed
out, "Someone DID listen to it eventually. Do you think it
didn't make a sound until someone pressed "Play"?" If we don't
observe something, does it happen? In one sense, no, it does not
happen, because we did not observe/record it. There is no proof.
BUT who said something needed PROOF in order to be real?
(actually, lots of people say that!) We have "faith" that that
tree made a sound in the forest, because a million times before,
when someone was around to hear a tree falling, it made a sound,
so we -assume- that trees ALWAYS make a sound when they fell,
even if no one is around to hear it. It is akin to the nature of
time. Does time continue without consciousness? Is conscious
observation required for reality to exist? Does the room
disappear when I walk out of it? Another perspective on the
nature (or lack thereof) of time: Imagine a being from a higher
dimension, from a perspective BEYOND time. For that being, ALL
THINGS HAPPEN AT ONCE - there is no break between events. It's
as if all the "Nows" occur in a single moment. Or that being
could easily see the beginning and the end and the middle of
time as easily as we can read a newspaper. And if that being can
see all things at once, does it really see anything? Or nothing?
In that way of seeing things, there IS no time, "time is
irrelevent" (my favorite expression as a teenager of the 80's).
Merely existance or non-existance. "Is" or "Not Is". What would
you look like if your birth, life and death were all collapsed
into a single moment? (actually, there would BE non "moment" as
we know moments, because they'll all be collapsed into a higher
level of "now" that we cannot perceive and hardly capable of
imagining). And if there is no time, there is no motion. Time
and space are irrevocably linked, according to Einstein - and
that was one of his great breakthroughs, for before him, most
people thought that time was steady. But add enough gravity to
time and it slows down - or appears to, according to an observer
who is *not* caught up in the severe gravity well. Crap. Back to
the observer problem. I love the twin paradox, how a twin
travelling near the speed of light comes back home to find his
twin brother old or long since dead, even though they started
off at the same age. A good "thought experiment', like
Shroedinger's cat is. I've got to stop touching on 7 different
things in a single posting. I confuse myself. Ken ______ Kenneth
Udut Webmaster of [1]
http://free.naplesplus.us Junkie of
"who-am-i" and "what is it, fundamentally" philosphies
References
Visible links
1.
http://free.naplesplus.us/
