Dubstepforum.com

the whole time I was reading that,
I couldn't help but read it in a Johnny Depp in Fear & Loathing voice.

Magma wrote:One quick correction - quantum mechanics doesn't show that a particle's state can *change* on observation, it says that it's state will be determined on observation - that is, before observation it has no state, only possible states.

And it's not only intelligent observation - an "inanimate object" 'observes' other inanimate objects to a strong enough degree to cause states to be chosen - for instance, the moon "feels" or "observes" the earth's gravitational pull, as does the earth "feel" the moon's despite them not having intelligence - their states are affected anyway.

Mmm... quantum.

I'll reply to this properly later!

is this considering the double slit experiment,
ala
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA
ala
http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... light=slit

Yeah, that's the famous demonstration of it - scares the willies out of me.

Hold tight Schrodinger's Cat crew!

Magma wrote:One quick correction - quantum mechanics doesn't show that a particle's state can *change* on observation, it says that it's state will be determined on observation - that is, before observation it has no state, only possible states.

And it's not only intelligent observation - an "inanimate object" 'observes' other inanimate objects to a strong enough degree to cause states to be chosen - for instance, the moon "feels" or "observes" the earth's gravitational pull, as does the earth "feel" the moon's despite them not having intelligence - their states are affected anyway.

Mmm... quantum.

I'll reply to this properly later!

This is interesting I didn't know this, but then science baffles me. I don't want to believe the whole quantum science = buddism thing. Because while quantum science has to be true, I'm not a big fan of the whole hippy thing.

yeh this tends to happen whenever science touches on the weird, people tie it in to their insane theories to sell books n stuff.
'What the bleep' is a prime example of this. Most of the film goes through the motions explaining the basic quantum and sub atomic concepts before launching into a mad theory about some crazy god called Ramtha (a wacky psuedoscience church that some members of the production team have vested interests in).

from da wiki page:
"Skeptics such as James Randi described the film as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults." The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense," where "science [is] distorted and sensationalized."A BBC reviewer described it as "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible."

Journalist John Gorenfeld, writing in Salon, notes that the film's three directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which he describes as having been called a "cult."



A book called Quantum Enigma is a great starting point for this stuff, it explores the more mind blowing ideas in quantum physics simply and without getting carried away.

limb wrote: I don't want to believe the whole quantum science = buddism thing. Because while quantum science has to be true, I'm not a big fan of the whole hippy thing.

and here's a good example of how the reality is changed by mtv's way to observe the world

Parson wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

Big up for this.

alien pimp wrote:

limb wrote: I don't want to believe the whole quantum science = buddism thing. Because while quantum science has to be true, I'm not a big fan of the whole hippy thing.

and here's a good example of how the reality is changed by mtv's way to observe the world

I don't have mtv, I never used to have a tv until quite recently, mine looks like this



and only has four channels, (when channel 4 is working BBC1 isn't for some reason) The name on the tv is Kingsley so I call him Ben. So I haven't watched much MTV and can't really follow what you mean by that. Is there a certain MTV anti-hippy philosophy?

lloydnoise wrote:yeh this tends to happen whenever science touches on the weird, people tie it in to their insane theories to sell books n stuff.
'What the bleep' is a prime example of this. Most of the film goes through the motions explaining the basic quantum and sub atomic concepts before launching into a mad theory about some crazy god called Ramtha (a wacky psuedoscience church that some members of the production team have vested interests in).

Yeah, my girlfriend bought it for me for Christmas on a whim because she thought it looked all physicsy and the sort of thing I'd dig.... it's fucking AWFUL! All I could think of whilst watching it was how many letters to write to the Guardian's Bad Science column.

Observation confuses the shit out of me, but rolling "intelligence" into it is generally the road to mumbojumboland!

Incidentally - on the points that "Quantum science has to be true" - it's not necessarily true. It's just the best model we have for things at the moment... there are still some pretty big holes in it (most famously - how in the hell do things that appear to be made up of massless particles obtain mass) - and I'm sure it will be rejigged a few more times before anyone puts a big green tick next to it! Newton's laws of motion worked perfectly for his time (and, largely, for most of ours!)... didn't mean they were "absolutely correct", though!

you could argue the same with science.

quantum theory is not "true", it is merely a very popular current theory that is statistically well supported by experiment. an extension, QED, is arguably the most strongest supported physics theory to date, predictions being supported by experiment to an accuracy of 10^−12......

doesn't mean it's true though i'm afraid..... or reality.... just what works at the moment - it may be further supported in the next years or someone could come along with a totally different scientific mathematical philosophy that is better supported by experiment.

in fact, the successful modelling of quantum mechanics as fields rather than particles in QED, is arguably what led to the unification of the weak and quantum electrodynamic force in relativistic quantum field theory and therefore eventually led to the concept of and drive for unification of all four forces through GUTs and TOEs (as yet unsupported by experiment without finetuning) and the support for string theory (which in itself was a rather pretty mathematical concept floating around for 30 or 40 years, until a particle physics theorist found it and thought it rather clever and suiting one of his ideas quite well...). But if we think back to the origin (QED)- Feynman, who invented it, basically thought that, mathematically, it was a load of mumbo jumbo fudging on his own part.

So actually you could argue that the only way we can measure or test reality is with statistics and probability, much like quantum theory itself - rather than a binary True or False concept. You could further argue that it could be popular opinion and support for current theories, and the blanket teaching of them to future researchers, that prevent a "truer" representation from being found.

That is, that the entire nature of reality as we understand it scientifically at the moment is a big pile of crap.


**edit: magma - you're reading my mind again

lloydnoise wrote:A book called Quantum Enigma

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Enigma- ... 447&sr=8-1

bagged, though it does say in the amazon review "Though what you are saying is correct, presenting this material to non-scientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns"

which is a little intimidating really

limb wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

limb wrote: I don't want to believe the whole quantum science = buddism thing. Because while quantum science has to be true, I'm not a big fan of the whole hippy thing.

and here's a good example of how the reality is changed by mtv's way to observe the world

I don't have mtv, I never used to have a tv until quite recently, mine looks like this



and only has four channels, (when channel 4 is working BBC1 isn't for some reason) The name on the tv is Kingsley so I call him Ben. So I haven't watched much MTV and can't really follow what you mean by that. Is there a certain MTV anti-hippy philosophy?

mtv stands for media and hippy stands for stereotypes created by media
none of them providing much clues about reality, especially when generalized even beyond what they were meant to define

limb wrote:

lloydnoise wrote:A book called Quantum Enigma

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Enigma- ... 447&sr=8-1

bagged, though it does say in the amazon review "Though what you are saying is correct, presenting this material to non-scientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns"

which is a little intimidating really

That's just some elitist dick trying to keep all the 'intellectual' subjects away from us unwashed masses - get stuck in - it's pretty complicated stuff at times, but you don't need a PhD to get some understanding/enjoyment out of it!

I'm going to stop stealing dr ddd's thunder by posting my Young Telegraph versions of his posts 30 seconds before he finishes his now!

Magma wrote: I'm going to stop stealing dr ddd's thunder by posting my Young Telegraph versions of his posts 30 seconds before he finishes his now!

i'm a she

but i guess that depends on your reality

limb wrote: I'm not a big fan of the whole hippy thing.

I'm thinking more and more I need to find me a hippy girl to wifey.

alien pimp wrote: mtv stands for media and hippy stands for stereotypes created by media
none of them providing much clues about reality, especially when generalized even beyond what they were meant to define

ok, I don't think that I've been indoctrinated by the media or that I stereotype people. I don't believe in the idea that we're all part of one consciousness, which I see as being an idea that is new age, or hippy, or buddist, or countless other old pagan nature religions. I don't see the link that people try to make from quantum theory to these religious beliefs.

dr ddd wrote:you could argue the same with science.

quantum theory is not "true", it is merely a very popular current theory that is statistically well supported by experiment. an extension, QED, is arguably the most strongest supported physics theory to date, predictions being supported by experiment to an accuracy of 10^−12......

doesn't mean it's true though i'm afraid..... or reality.... just what works at the moment - it may be further supported in the next years or someone could come along with a totally different scientific mathematical philosophy that is better supported by experiment.

in fact, the successful modelling of quantum mechanics as fields rather than particles in QED, is arguably what led to the unification of the weak and quantum electrodynamic force in relativistic quantum field theory and therefore eventually led to the concept of and drive for unification of all four forces through GUTs and TOEs (as yet unsupported by experiment without finetuning) and the support for string theory (which in itself was a rather pretty mathematical concept floating around for 30 or 40 years, until a particle physics theorist found it and thought it rather clever and suiting one of his ideas quite well...). But if we think back to the origin (QED)- Feynman, who invented it, basically thought that, mathematically, it was a load of mumbo jumbo fudging on his own part.

So actually you could argue that the only way we can measure or test reality is with statistics and probability, much like quantum theory itself - rather than a binary True or False concept. You could further argue that it could be popular opinion and support for current theories, and the blanket teaching of them to future researchers, that prevent a "truer" representation from being found.

That is, that the entire nature of reality as we understand it scientifically at the moment is a big pile of crap.


**edit: magma - you're reading my mind again

i think this kinda fixed the topic

i go for the binary model. as i suggested in some other discussions, not even those scientists are taking "probabilities" in account when there's traffic and the red light is on
observing a crossroad can solve more questions about reality than quantums do as of now

limb wrote:

alien pimp wrote: mtv stands for media and hippy stands for stereotypes created by media
none of them providing much clues about reality, especially when generalized even beyond what they were meant to define

ok, I don't think that I've been indoctrinated by the media or that I stereotype people. I don't believe in the idea that we're all part of one consciousness, which I see as being an idea that is new age, or hippy, or buddist, or countless other old pagan nature religions. I don't see the link that people try to make from quantum theory to these religious beliefs.

maybe i got something wrong then... hippies have nothing to do here anyway
and i too think oneness is death, multiple optionsis life

but read the Taophysics, i feel you'll like it

Parson wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

good shit. I'd like to know where that, meets this:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill ... sight.html

Misk wrote:

Parson wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

good shit. I'd like to know where that, meets this:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill ... sight.html

i love you for bringing this in!
i suspect this is what meditation does for some people: shuts down the chatter
yet being integrated and being part of the flux doesn't necessarily need to cancel the chatter, i think being able to use both in harmony with each other, propelling each other, should add excitement and value