Physics Help Forum The realms of the Observed VS Unobserved

 Physics Physics Forum - General Physics Discussion and Physics News

 Aug 13th 2019, 05:00 PM #1 Junior Member   Join Date: Aug 2019 Posts: 1 The realms of the Observed VS Unobserved This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation. The act of Observation/Measurement is a request of quantum wave information to Spacetime. The interaction is someone purposely placing a detector wanting a particle to be physical. You make a request by setting something that can analyze the particle during its life/path. The state of a particle is decided before it starts. Double slit interpretation: Randomly shot particles are shot through a double slit, if no one places a detector in the path of the particle, the unobserved particle will be in the form of two waves (one for each slit) . Depending on the which wave ends up with more energy (after the split) ..the final position of a channel representing a fringe will be the final resting place of the now collapsed particle. If the energy wasn't unbalanced, I would expect to see only a single channel of fringe be filled in. Now a detector gets placed anywhere along the path between the cannon and the final landing screen. The particle shot will be collapsed upon leaving the cannon because the state of the particle has already been decided. It won't be waves, just a particle. It's been pulled from the unobserved quantum realm and made physical in Spacetime. It will go through one slit and hit the final screen in a normal clump. If you accept this interpretation ..then you accept a particle being either a particle or waves ..not both at the same time. You now also know that placing a detector in an experiment is a request from a human to the realm of unobserved QM to swap quantum waves into something physical. Observation is then a property of Spacetime. Observation is the reason Spacetime exits. General Relativity = Spacetime = the theory of the large scale Unobserved QM = Waves = the theory of the small scale They are both realms in the same domain Observed (Spacetime) vs Unobserved (Quantum Waves) Observation is then a request to bring an object from one realm to the other. Observation is the bridge between the two. The theory of the very large and small are unified. This is conditional statement that formulates a Theory of Everything: If (spacetime object){ //larger than abbes diffraction limit (or the equivalent mass energy levels - quanta) OR being observed current situation = General Relativity; } else{current situation = Unobserved QM; } //The particle collapses no matter the state when it hits a predefined Spacetime object. There is a duality of realms, but the object in question is either in one or the other. Duality is impossible for particles if it can tunnel or fit through a space smaller than its structure. Waves can do that sort of thing ..not physical (observed) objects. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of the particle is known. It's about the entire life of both entangled particles. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed. This is where I go a bit off the deep end (you are welcome to ignore this paragraph): The reason for Spacetime to exist is for living things to be able to observe. Living things wouldn't like being in an unobservable world.There isn't a logical reason for Spacetime to exist. Spacetime was written to use unobserved wave information for mortals. I've had time to consider what my post implies and it points at a god being involved. Not a god man has described, but one bored out of its existence. The meaning of life is to entertain a god with nothing but time to waste. Each observation we make is something to entertain this god. The realm of unobserved quantum waves has always been and always will be. Spacetime has a beginning. Unobserved quantum waves don't need anything from Spacetime to function. Gravitons don't exist. Photons don't use our version of time. The distance a photon travels doesn't matter. If we request it, its state has been decided. I want to add that I think there is a good chance a black hole is a spherical gap in Spacetime with the unobservable quantum realm exposed. The event horizon is still spacetime, but inside that is quantum waves. The cause of a polarized eraser with the double slit is the same for quantum uncertainty. You have a double slit with opposite linear polarizers at each slit. You get an observed clump. You then add a 45 degree polarizer and the fringes come back. It's not because the which way information is getting erased. It's because the particle starts a new life when passing through multiple filters. The state of a particle is predetermined based on the path it will fly through. But something interesting happens with you place multiple detectors. The particles state is reassessed while passing through a polarizer. If it sees another polarizer in its path it's going to cycle back to being a wave. Atoms normally shake around with thermal energy ..but not as much as quantum uncertainty makes them appear to be doing. The Uncertainty Principle is a side effect from repeated requests to make the QM object real/physical. It's a delay/smear from the system not being able to process quick enough. Swapping from wave to particle is apparently taxing, especially if it has to do it to each observed event (frame/timeline), for momentum tests. A simple double slit example shows us that a particle can be requested to decohere and remain decohered until it hits the final screen. An Uncertainty Principle test requires several requests of decoherence to get the momentum. What's newly discovered is that each request is causing the particle to cycle from wave to particle, setting fuzziness because it wasn't fast enough to do the swap. If you are measuring something that isn't remaining in the same state, you can't blame the detectors of decoherence anymore. It was ridiculous to assume a detector capable of displaying both coherence and decoherence was the cause anyways.
 Aug 15th 2019, 09:38 AM #2 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 963 OK, but... Your arguments are not daft, however the philosophical leanings of most scientists would lead them to seek alternative explanations. The "primitive" idea of the world was that the "Gods" dictated what happened and "we" just had to put up with it. The renaissance idea was that the universe is a mechanism, that does what it does without either divine, or human, intervention. Like a clock, it continues ticking regardless of if it is observed or not. The quantum world seems to have bought back the "observer", but it is somewhat unclear about what constitutes "an observation" Does an observation have to include a conscious appreciation of what is being observed? The nature of the consciousness of the universe, and its connection with our own human consciousness, has been (and will continue to be) discussed many times over the years. (especially when a group of students discover cannabis) benit13 likes this. __________________ ~\o/~
 Aug 15th 2019, 04:08 PM #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 495 EM vs CRT I read some materials about the double slits "experiment"/observed or unobserved once upon a time. It's funny and a bit cryptic. When a guy is watching old style CRT TV, he observes particles of electron. When the guy is watching electron microscope (EM), he observes electron wave. If the guy watchs CRT TV with one eye while watchs EM with another eye, he observes particles and wave of electron at the same time.haha...a bit of joke. I often say that time is a bit more complicated and secret than space. I put it aside temporarily. Woody's words "Like a clock, it continues ticking regardless of if it is observed or not." is objective. Good.
 Aug 16th 2019, 02:28 AM #4 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Glasgow Posts: 426 Yes, I agree with Woody. overall, it seems like the thoughts you have are a raw, unrefined aspect of modern science. Sure the aspects of observed vs unobserved elements are available in physics, but the experimentally validated theories probably don't play out exactly as you have in mind. I think you'll make a lot of progress to refine your thinking if you learn quantum mechanics and particle physics in more detail. In those fields, the nature of observations (i.e. how you observe the system under investigation) is a key component, since interactions are a key element of those theories. It will also help you pick up the more standard terminology which is generally accepted in the literature. For example, you state "Atoms normally shake around with thermal energy ..but not as much as quantum uncertainty makes them appear to be doing." However, if you calculate the typical uncertainty in position, $\displaystyle \Delta x$, for an orbital electron and the typical displacement for a vibrating molecule, you can compare them. You'll probably find that the latter will be the bigger displacement unless the temperature is extremely low. You also state "I want to add that I think there is a good chance a black hole is a spherical gap in Spacetime with the unobservable quantum realm exposed. The event horizon is still spacetime, but inside that is quantum waves." but I'm pretty sure you just made that up. What do you mean by "quantum waves"? What do you mean by "spherical gap"? What's the difference between the "quantum realm" and the "normal realm"? It's easy to say the physics words, but much more difficult to come up with an original theory that not only solves existing problems, but has predictive power. So yeah... keep studying the existing literature and you'll be probably be quite close to a stage when you can start plugging up the holes in your monologue. Then you'll be ready to hit the journal literature instead of the textbooks and start inventing new theories
 Aug 16th 2019, 05:42 AM #5 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 495 xyz Anyone come to PHF talk something, just one kick,...back to the classroom, authentic textbook, calculate xyz in Newton era. Perfect solution.
Aug 16th 2019, 06:29 AM   #6
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 426
 Originally Posted by neila9876 Anyone come to PHF talk something, just one kick,...back to the classroom, authentic textbook, calculate xyz in Newton era. Perfect solution.
Yes, except for the Newton-era solution part... there's plenty of existing literature to study on modern, post-classical physics too. You should know both if they're both relevant for your work!

Also, the only reason this is usually the advice I give is because 99% of the people who come to this forum claiming to have new ideas haven't done their literature review (which can take anywhere from 2 -12 months depending on the scope of the work). Those who have done their homework presumably don't need to go to an internet forum to ask strangers for advice.

Believe it or not, it's very, very difficult to come up with new physics theories that are really good. It's a lot of work, which is why career physicists are a real job, not just some clever dudes chilling in a lab all day

That said, I do try to make my feedback constructive so no matter how good or bad the ideas are, the OP has something they can do to go back to their work (whatever it may be) and improve it.

Last edited by benit13; Aug 16th 2019 at 06:43 AM.

 Aug 16th 2019, 07:39 AM #7 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 495 The problem with the OP is what's the difference between a "funny" experiment and a "Nobel price" experiment (the SG experiment). Actually, they are talking almost the same ****

 Tags observed, realms, unobserved

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post pittsburghjoe Philosophy of Physics 11 Aug 2nd 2017 06:31 PM pittsburghjoe Physics 5 Jan 19th 2017 09:18 PM