Amazing presentations about quantum physics

[Divide by Zero]

I saw these presentations on a comedy site that I check once in a while.
I was amazed to find these well made presentations about quantum physics.
It gets pretty crazy at part 3 and 4... so please check them all out if you have time!

http://quantumiscool1.ytmnd.com
http://quantamiscool2.ytmnd.com
http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com
http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com

Edit: I forgot to mention that they are serious about it... not making jokes about quantum theory.

 

[Azur]

That was pretty cool.

Thanks for sharing it!

[post-edit:]

Of the effect that is reproducible, something remains undefined: what encompasses or constitutes Observation?

 

[rs]

I always interpreted the idea of "the observer" in the most general sense. Does a cat observe? Sure. Does a plant? Does a rock?

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it still smash the rock?

I think of an observer as "anything that can undergo an internal change of state as a result of an interaction". The idea that the whole universe may only be compilations of units of consciousness is attractive, but a bit beyond my (actually QUITE a bit) ability to analyze.

 

[Azur]

I always interpreted the idea of "the observer" in the most general sense. Does a cat observe? Sure. Does a plant? Does a rock?

Good questions. If you place a cat or a rock in stead of the "sensors" that were part of the light pathway/wave determination, what are the results? Has it been done? If this is silly, and someone knows why, chime in!

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it still smash the rock?

I have always thought that the old saw about if nobody is present to hear a tree fall, is it falling? to be anthropomorphic (Although what you say here is NOT the old saw). If a tree falls, is it real and to whom/what? Hard to explain that every tree you have ever come across in the forest laying sideways either a) grew that way, with half it's root out of the ground (can they even grow that way?), or b) fell because it was perceived to have fallen and that means b,ii) what qualifies as an "observer"?

I think of an observer as "anything that can undergo an internal change of state as a result of an interaction".

That's a pretty huge range, and I would tend to agree with you. (Would we ever be able, us humans I mean, to detect a state change undergone by a rock, and if we did, would it be interpreted correctly for what it is/was?)


But again, this begs the question (and I'm not putting RS on the spot here, it is an open question to all): what constitutes, what basic criteria of organization is required (and what is it that is "organized") to qualify as an Observer and precipitates a quantum wave collapse?

Is it "built-in" that the Universe has a threshold of what constitutes an Observer?

 

[nf3]

If you place a cat or a rock in stead of the "sensors" that were part of the light pathway/wave determination, what are the results? Has it been done? If this is silly, and someone knows why, chime in!

I'm not quantum physicist, but my understanding is that nobody understands exactly what an observer is. You could say that the experimenter is the observer, but in order to observe he needs detectors. You can't test to see if the detector counts as an observer because if you remove the detector you can't see the results and if you remove the experimenter nobody can report what the detector measured. A cat or a rock wouldn't be able to tell us anything and even if they could see the particles and report their findings to us, the act of reporting might change the result since we are now included in the observing process. Either way we wouldn't know.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it still smash the rock?

Of course it smashes the rock. I believe the saying is actually "...does it still make a sound?" Which I think does hit pretty close to the problem. If you remove the tree obviously there will be no sound, and if you remove the observer you have nobody to report whether or not there was a sound.

But again, this begs the question (and I'm not putting RS on the spot here, it is an open question to all): what constitutes, what basic criteria of organization is required (and what is it that is "organized") to qualify as an Observer and precipitates a quantum wave collapse?

It's a very good question and I hope Ark will set me straight if I'm way off here.

In the meantime I think the best practical application is to assume that we are observers and that the system we are observing is the planet we live on. Ark says in EEQT that the state of the system is affected by the objectivity of the observer in that less objectivity causes the system to jump to a state of increased chaos and more objectivity causes it to jump to a state of increased order. So we will need as many objective observers as possible during the upcoming macrocosmic wave collapse.

 

[Beau]

If you remove the tree obviously there will be no sound, and if you remove the observer you have nobody to report whether or not there was a sound.

What about leaving a tape or video recorder to "catch the sound?"

 

[ark]

if you remove the experimenter nobody can report what the detector measured.

What about a trained dog? A trained dog can take a tape recorder, as suggested by beau, and bring it home. Then it can be stored in a cellar for a couple of years, until some kid finds it and listen to recoding. There can be even several dogs and several recorders, and kids all over the planet. Then which one of the kids us responsible for the EVENT that happened in the past?

So, all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Zadius Sky]

What about leaving a tape or video recorder to "catch the sound?"

Then, that recorder is an observer?

I think there are observers everywhere, even now in this very forum. It might be our 3rd Density limitations that prevent us to find those unseen observers and see what they see. There's always a way...

A cat or a rock wouldn't be able to tell us anything and even if they could see the particles and report their findings to us, the act of reporting might change the result since we are now included in the observing process. Either way we wouldn't know.

That may be true. I think C's once said: "wait until you get to 4th Density."

fwiw.

 

[ark]

It might be our 3rd Density limitations that prevent us to find those unseen observers and see what they see.

Or it may be our 3rd Density power, because they can't see what WE see and they can't DO what we do?

 

[Zadius Sky]

Or it may be our 3rd Density power, because they can't see what WE see and they can't DO what we do?

Good point. Maybe that's partly why they fell - so they can experience what we see, then go back (or regain) to their observer's state, then back to 3rd Density again. It's a never-ending cycle.

As to observer/observed, it is much like being in a theatre where the audience is a collective observer, seeing the actors (the observed). But sometimes, the audience would like to know what it's like being the actors, and the actors would like to know what it's like being the audience (only if they are aware that the audience existed). That audience can only see but cannot interfere with the actor's course in the play unless that actor can be aware of them and ask.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Mikey]

Then which one of the kids us responsible for the EVENT that happened in the past?

I would say, the first one who listens to the tape. All others would then learn, if they (independently or not) listen to the tape too, what is already known and is already a fact.

Or it may be our 3rd Density power, because they can't see what WE see and they can't DO what we do?

In the case of 6th d unified thought forms, like the C's, I don't know if either they would know if there was a sound (and not tell us due to free will), or if they can SEE that there IS and IS NOT sound simultaneously. I would bet on the second case.

 

[arkmod]

I would say, the first one who listens to the tape. All others would then learn, if they (independently or not) listen to the tape too, what is already known and is already a fact.

But who decides which of them is "the first one". We know from relativity theory that simultaneity" is relative, it depends on the state of motion of the observer! The kid which is the first one for one observer may well be the second one for another observer....

In the case of 6th d unified thought forms, like the C's, I don't know if either they would know if there was a sound (and not tell us due to free will), or if they can SEE that there IS and IS NOT sound simultaneously. I would bet on the second case.

So, the devil is always in the datails, and lot of these details we don't know. It's always good to keep it in mind, always be open to new data and new ideas.

 

[John G]

I think Laura somewhere mentioned the idea that each individual is kind of choosing their own path through the universe. Thus in the deepest sense we aren't seeing other entities (humans, rocks, etc.) making a choice but we ourselves are choosing what choices of others to see. From a more practical viewpoint though we are certainly going to mostly see the more highly probable choices of others.

The math of what a choice is, is not overly well known. There could be some natural GRW-like decoherence like Ark's quantum jumps responsible for a single choice from many possibilities. There could be some additional environmental decoherence due to a domino effect beginning with an Ark-like quantum jump. There could be some quantum computer Penrose-like decoherence math going on in a human brain. Not all decoherence though has to come from a brain, so I would think there can be a sound chosen without an ear or recorder.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

All of this reminds me of a "Psi" experiment that I once read about (and I can't seem to find it online right now, though I'm sure it's still there). In summary, the experiment demonstrated the validity and reality of "retrokinesis" -- i.e. being able to change the past with one's mind. I can't recall the precise details of the experiment, but I believe that it went something like this:

A computer produced a series of monotones in a completely isolated room which were recorded to tape. The computer could either produce a tone in the left speaker channel or the right speaker channel. A program was used to ensure that the series of monotones was completely randomised, so that one would expect approximately 50% of the tones to be recorded as LEFT, and 50% to be recorded as RIGHT. Upon completion of the randomised recording, the tape was sealed in a container, put in the bottom of a drawer somewhere and forgotten about.

The next stage of the experiment involved a group of people (known to have "psychic" abilities) whose task it was to "influence" with their mind the outcome of the "randomised" tonal recordings which had already taken place. These people had no idea of when the recordings took place, or where they took place. In fact I don't even know if they knew about the recordings to begin with, not until after they'd already occurred. Anyway, these subjects were asked to cause more LEFT tones to appear on the tape, for example.

After this "retrokinesis", the tape was played back. The results amazingly showed a statistically significant bias towards the LEFT channel. The experiment was of course repeated many times, with different people, and the results were nearly always the same. Both RIGHT and LEFT bias was induced according to the thoughts of the participants.

Another strange finding was that if someone who didn't have any particular "psychic" abilities tried to change the results, and then a more psychically inclined individual attempted the same thing on the same tape, the results were neutral -- that is, no bias was found. In effect, the mere act of trying to influence the past forfeited the success of any subsequent attempt to influence the past!

The only conclusion is that until something is observed, it's not concrete or real. Perhaps the experiment should be repeated with a dog or cat in the recording room.

 

[Alana]

Ok, i'll start by saying that psysics, quantum physics is not my thing, but these sentences gave me this thought, which might be completely off, but when i thought it i felt happy inside:

I think Laura somewhere mentioned the idea that each individual is kind of choosing their own path through the universe. Thus in the deepest sense we aren't seeing other entities (humans, rocks, etc.) making a choice but we ourselves are choosing what choices of others to see.

It's like a picture in my head with a group of people, all who have chosen their paths. And when one really looks at another, and objectively sees the other person and their choice, even if the other person is not yet awake to his/her choice, the fact that another saw his/her choice will help him/her move along the right path for him/her. As if the looking objectively at someone, something, will help it/him/her transform towards what he/she/it really is.

I apologize if i can't describe this picture in an understandable way. In my head it seems like the epitome of STO!

:D