Previous in Forum: Improved Hydrogen Technology   Next in Forum: Your research experience is a good story - tell it here
Close
Close
Close
10 comments
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4373
Good Answers: 104

Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/23/2007 12:10 AM

In the mid 1980s, a group from the University of Maryland, and a separate group from the University of Munich carried out a version of the two holes experiment (see Quantum Mysteries Parts 1-4). They used a beam of laser light that went through a beam-splitting mirror. One of the split beams was phase-shifted and then the two split beams were recombined to form the interference pattern. Detectors known as Pockels cells were placed in each of the split beams to monitor the passage of photons, and detectors at the far end looked to see if it was producing interference or not. The Pockels cells could be switched on or off within 9 nanoseconds. The length of each path of light took about 15 nanoseconds for light to travel that far, so the detectors could be switched on (or off) after the light had passed the detectors. The decision of whether the cells were on or off was made by a computer at random (with no human intervention). Both groups found that the light behaved as particles or waves depending on which choice was going to be made, even though the decision had not been made when the light passed the detectors! The universe seems to know what is going to happen before it happens.

For a possible resolution to the mysteries in this series, see John Gribbin's book Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality.

Where shall we go from here? Shall I write a summary or resolution?
Was this series worth while or was it "old hat" and a waste of time for you?
Should I have posted all of it at once? Give me you views.

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2923
Good Answers: 24
#1

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/23/2007 10:45 AM

...universe seems to know what is going to happen before it happens...

You can refer to the Einstein Podolski Rosen (EPR) thought-experiment, which suggested your query long ago

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4373
Good Answers: 104
#5
In reply to #1

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/24/2007 2:59 PM

Hi Yuval,

The EPR thought-experiment was proven wrong (see Quantum Mysteries Part 2). Could you elaborate on your position (do you agree or not agree with the quote you posted?). What part of the EPR are you basing your position on?

S

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2923
Good Answers: 24
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/24/2007 3:30 PM

The EPR I was referring to was suggested in the nineteen-fifties, and it's about two identical particles, travelling independently and in opposite directions, with the seemingly weird effect that, should you change the polarization of one, the other will change it's polarization remotely, as if it was told in advance, of your intention.

The problem is not if I agree with it or not, because I don't care either way. I only learn about it, and take it into account.

Quantum mechanics have enough magic to blow anyone's mind, at any given field. But if you refer to Schroedinger's "cat-in-the-box" thought experiment, you'd see that it's about the same.

I personally believe that QM is only trying to accurately describe nature's behaviour, not explain it. This it does with the brilliance and accuracy of eighteen decimal digits, following the comma, and this was so confirmed for the last 60 years.

As a matter of fact, it is so accurate, that every time we have a new technology to test the theory and it's descriptive math, we get more and more accurate results, confirming what was discovered (not invented!) in the nineteen thirties.

I may argue with opinions and interpretation, but never with repeatedly measured facts. This is not about interpretation. This is about repetitive, coherent, measurement.

Why on earth, argue with the Almighty about His Creation? Except it for what it is, instead of trying to forcibly draw it from ancient scriptures.

Aren't we sincere or devoted enough with our measurements?

QM is honest and innocent because it doesn't try to explain, only accurately describe.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2923
Good Answers: 24
#2

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/23/2007 10:53 AM

Now, almost in the same subject, here's some web-magic:

"Next in Forum: PERPETUAL MOTION "

was right infront of my eyes, on this very page, top-right, and when clicked on it, I got:

"Problem!

You are attempting to access an item that is not valid or was removed.
We're sorry for the inconvenience.
Please continue from our home page. "

Now, isn't this perpetual?

Dear Admin, Please don't cut "perpetuals" unless it's really offensive.

We too, need our daily fun.

Register to Reply
Friend of CR4

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1995
Good Answers: 35
#3
In reply to #2

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/23/2007 11:21 AM

Hi Yuval,

That post was cut because the user put up the same post twice. Here's the link to the active one:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/6335/Is-Natural-Frequency-Perpetual-Motion

So, have your daily fun...

__________________
Off to take on other challenges. Good luck everybody! See you around the Interwebs.
Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Toronto, Ontario (South Parkdale On The Lakeshore) Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - Great Lakes School Of Marine Technology (Owen Sound and Port Colbourne) Technical Fields - Architecture - Private Practice 1976-1990 Technical Fields - Education - Toronto Teachers' College 1971 Technical Fields - Marketing/Advertising - Founding Member Hobbies - Hunting - Founding Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - Founding Member

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Posts: 1265
Good Answers: 14
#4

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

03/24/2007 2:58 AM

In the mid-70's, Dr Marshall McLuhan pointed out that the only known accurate predictor of the future was the rear-view mirror. Interestingly, both theories employ the use of bicameral perception and a mirror.

It may be argued that bi-cameral perception is not required in the rear-view experience, since persons with one eye can also interpret the vision in the mirror. However, this is not the case. Only persons who have experienced/"learned" bicameral depth perception for a sustained period of time can continue that perceptual ability with one eye. The brain makes up for the sudden lack of bi-camerality by employing experiential theory to approximate the depth perception necessary for the best possible prediction.

So where does this leave us with regard to the Pockels cells and "decision-object" learning re wave/particulate light dispersion?

We have to ask ourselves was it the light that behaved differently, or the choice of detection that differed?

Mark

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4373
Good Answers: 104
#7

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

04/01/2007 1:30 AM

My apologies. Being unable to find the afore mentioned book, I am not able to give a good summary to this series. Unfortunately I didn't have one in my original document. It had something to do with Maxwell's equations for electricity & magnetism not being time specific. Here is what I remember: A wave is sent out traveling into the past. Another wave is sent out traveling into the future. Somehow these waves explain non-locality (I am not sure I ever understood it). If any of you have this explanation, then please post it here.

This link has a lot of background material, and some good possible explanations for some things (I have not formulated an opinion yet). I had also posted this in part 1.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-quantum-physics.htm

S

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Israel
Posts: 2923
Good Answers: 24
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

04/01/2007 5:36 AM

...sent out traveling into the past. Another wave is sent out traveling into the future...

Traveling into the past or the future, in what sense?

Please describe a given system (a vibrating molecule, a particle orbital, a mechanical system, anything, in any scale, for that matter), in which you think, a component can be defined as traveling into the past or into the future.

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4373
Good Answers: 104
#9

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

04/02/2007 10:19 PM

Recent blogs have indicated a need for me to do more reading - a refresher course, so to speak. With my son in the FIRST robotics competition last week and income tax pulling at my coat tails, it has been difficult to find the time.

I had believed the theory that explains this is quantum electrodynamics (QED), so I was expecting one of you to jump up and save the day, but that hasn't happened, so I guess it's all up to me, and I will do the best I can. Perhaps it was Gribbin's own twist to the theory or something entirely separate.

Yuval wrote: "Traveling into the past or the future, in what sense?"

When we look at a galaxy through a telescope we are looking back into our past because the light from it started millions of years ago. It sent its photons (I will call them waves) into its future where they met up with us in our present, and we observed them. If it also sent waves into its past, then they would never have encountered us, and we would not be aware of them.

Getting back to the two holes experiment with the pockels cells; if a wave from our future came back to our present (at the speed of light) and had an effect on the outcome of the experiment by meeting up with a wave from our past (which was also traveling at the speed of light), it would appear to have happened instantaneaously, and we would say to ourselves "The universe seems to know what is going to happen before it happens."

There, I think I have done it, but I will keep looking for the book and give you more 'information' when I have it.

Regards,

S

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors -

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4373
Good Answers: 104
#10

Re: Quantum Mysteries Part 5. Predicting the Future?

04/17/2007 8:58 PM

I had forgot I had put a more complete explanation in my History of Light document, so read the forum thread History of Light.

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Register to Reply 10 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Chris Leonard (1); MarkTheHandyman (1); StandardsGuy (4); Yuval (4)

Previous in Forum: Improved Hydrogen Technology   Next in Forum: Your research experience is a good story - tell it here

Advertisement