I have an idea regarding both Quantum Physics and Cosmology

[anomalies]

Can anyone help me with the necessary physics?

 

I am not a scientist.

 

I was whacked by Quantum Physics - the double slit experiment for example (

). I am also extremely intrigued by dark matter/energy, which are thought of as separate-from-each-other phenomena (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102121644.htm). I believe they are the same, capable of displaying different states. I believe they are made up of extremely tiny particles with special properties that are affected by thought waves. I have reasons to believe this. I call these particles teeny tinies. My idea has to do with ESP, too. I don't know if that means my idea is not welcome here or not. Please let me know, and it ends here.

 

I don't know the physics required to come up with a plausible theory - is there anyone who can help here, or do you not do that sort of thing here?

 

Thanks in advance.

[swansont]

How would you test your hypothesis? You need to do it in a way that will falsify it if it's wrong, and exclude other explanations if you observe what you expect.

 

Can you change the outcome of a double-slit experiment by thinking about it? That would count.

[walkntune]

When science can unmask this one they won't come to a conclusion of the existence of God.They will understand though why almost 90% of the world believes in a God and how your thoughts,feelings, and actions actually create your reality and not just observe it.

Those in religions watch there realities work with there religions and those in sciences watch there realities work with there sciences. Either way the uncertainties can't be predicted because they are created by us.(even by our very thoughts)Nikola Tesla discovered how this magnetic energy worked years ago.

[swansont]

walkntune, please stay on-topic; restrict the discussion of your own speculative topic to your own thread, and refrain from bringing religion into it

[walkntune]

Sorry not trying to bring religion and I'm not religious.I believe with the op that thoughts are effecting the behavior of the electron.

[anomalies]

No one here can help me.

 

Thanks anyway.

[mooeypoo]

No one here can help me.

 

Thanks anyway.

You're giving up quite quickly.. swansont raised a few very good questions for you to consider. The point of those questions wasn't to ridicule, but to strengthen the theory: if your theory can survive the criticism, it will only be stronger, and if it can't, then you might get an idea of how to change it to make it better fitting to reality.

 

That's quite a lot of help.

 

And by the way, "pseudoscience and speculation" includes SPECULATION in it. I know people tend to read halfway and ignore the 'speculation' bit, but it IS there. Moving your thread to this forum is because it's a speculation and not mainstream science. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be debated or might eventually "graduate" to a full fledged mainstream scientific theory. It's not there yet, though, and there are problems in your hypothesis you must deal with before this migration to mainstream science can be possible.

 

Hence, this is the logical place. If you think you should just give up because we raise criticism, I recommend you watch out of the outside world, they will likely be a lot less helpful.

 

~moo

[anomalies]

You're giving up quite quickly.. swansont raised a few very good questions for you to consider. The point of those questions wasn't to ridicule, but to strengthen the theory: if your theory can survive the criticism, it will only be stronger, and if it can't, then you might get an idea of how to change it to make it better fitting to reality.

 

That's quite a lot of help.

 

And by the way, "pseudoscience and speculation" includes SPECULATION in it. I know people tend to read halfway and ignore the 'speculation' bit, but it IS there. Moving your thread to this forum is because it's a speculation and not mainstream science. It has nothing to do with whether or not it can be debated or might eventually "graduate" to a full fledged mainstream scientific theory. It's not there yet, though, and there are problems in your hypothesis you must deal with before this migration to mainstream science can be possible.

 

Hence, this is the logical place. If you think you should just give up because we raise criticism, I recommend you watch out of the outside world, they will likely be a lot less helpful.

 

~moo

 

Thanks for your reply, mooeypoo. By saying, "Can you change the outcome of a double-slit experiment by thinking about it? That would count," swansont was ridiculing me, in my opinion. We all know the experiment is dependent on observation. But then, no one explains how this observation is known by the light particles. That's the tricky part.

 

In my mind, I know where I am going with this. It is no less than a way to explain the paranormal world and what we perceive as a material world.

 

I will find a way without you guys. It doesn't mean I won't come here anymore, but I probably won't share my ideas with you. This isn't the place for me to do that.

 

Thanks again.

[Klaynos]

It depends how the observation is done as to how the photons "know" there has been an observation. To observe it involves some kind of interaction, this interaction removes the superposition of states.

[mooeypoo]

Thanks for your reply, mooeypoo. By saying, "Can you change the outcome of a double-slit experiment by thinking about it? That would count," swansont was ridiculing me, in my opinion. We all know the experiment is dependent on observation. But then, no one explains how this observation is known by the light particles. That's the tricky part.

I didn't find it at all ridiculing, he was making a valid point, and knowing him, I doubt he meant to ridicule you.

 

In my mind, I know where I am going with this. It is no less than a way to explain the paranormal world and what we perceive as a material world.

The problem is that we're not talking about your mind, we're talking about reality, so there needs to be some connection here to what happens in reality.. hence the points about demonstrating your idea works in reality.

 

If you decide that challenging your idea is ridiculing you, then perhaps you need to reconsider how certain you are about your own theory. I can assure you the outside world "scientific community" will be much less patient.

 

So, you have an idea, now show us it's realistic and valid. Otherwise, don't pretend that we're the one at fault for your theory not being accepted as real.

 

 

I will find a way without you guys. It doesn't mean I won't come here anymore, but I probably won't share my ideas with you. This isn't the place for me to do that.

Why, because we ask questions?

 

I didn't see anyone here trying to ridicule you. People ask questions, and they won't stop asking just because you find it annoying. If you can't answer those questions, your theory has no hope of "graduating" to have a place in mainstream science. If you think actual peer-review process will be any nicer, you're wrong.

 

Too bad, too. New ideas are usually great incentive to learning new concepts, whether they're found to be right or wrong.

[anomalies]

It depends how the observation is done as to how the photons "know" there has been an observation. To observe it involves some kind of interaction, this interaction removes the superposition of states.

 

 

Thanks, Klaynos. From your response, it isn't clear how into Quantum Physics you are. The experiment was done with electrons, not photons. Care to share your view in more detail?

 

In the example I posted (a 5 minute You Tube video with the delightful Dr. Quantum -

), the electrons' observation is mysterious. In the two slit experiment, it appears to be triggered simply by the presence of a measuring device (recording which slit the electrons entered), but that still does not explain how matter can observe anything. Do they have eyes? Psychic powers? Or are electrons a 3rd dimensional manifestation of other dimensional entities that are equiped to observe, confer and act? I feel strongly that the particles - whether they be electrons or not - have an awareness, a consciousness, if you will. The Quantum physicists who have performed this experiment agree that each electron decided which slit to enter and whether or not to behave as matter or waves (energy). Then there is also the fact that they ALL decided which slits to enter and took sides. When they were observed, there wasn't a straggler among the lot. Group mind? ESP? There was obvious conferring going on.

 

In fact, it is my belief that absolutely everything that exists has a consciousness, from the Universe as a whole, to stars, to insects, to the tiniest of particles - my so-called teeny tinies. I have reason to believe this, too.

 

As an aside, the fact that those electrons displayed both properties of matter and energy is fuel to my idea that dark matter and dark energy are one and the same.

 

See? No weird stuff here. Well, no weirder than Quantum Physics is all by itself.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I didn't find it at all ridiculing, he was making a valid point, and knowing him, I doubt he meant to ridicule you.

 

 

The problem is that we're not talking about your mind, we're talking about reality, so there needs to be some connection here to what happens in reality.. hence the points about demonstrating your idea works in reality.

 

If you decide that challenging your idea is ridiculing you, then perhaps you need to reconsider how certain you are about your own theory. I can assure you the outside world "scientific community" will be much less patient.

 

So, you have an idea, now show us it's realistic and valid. Otherwise, don't pretend that we're the one at fault for your theory not being accepted as real.

 

 

 

Why, because we ask questions?

 

I didn't see anyone here trying to ridicule you. People ask questions, and they won't stop asking just because you find it annoying. If you can't answer those questions, your theory has no hope of "graduating" to have a place in mainstream science. If you think actual peer-review process will be any nicer, you're wrong.

 

Too bad, too. New ideas are usually great incentive to learning new concepts, whether they're found to be right or wrong.

 

I found his remarks and the moving of my thread to be ridiculing. It doesn't matter what you think of him. I don't know either of you.

 

As for questions, I would answer them happily but was not asked any questions, mooeypoo. swansont asked me how I would test my hypothesis, didn't he/she? Truth is, I am not a cosmologist, nor a mathemetician. Secondly, did I say my idea was a hypothesis? I did not. Did I say it was a theory, as you yourself suggest? No, again, I did not.

 

Further, see my response to Klaynos. I am not a stupid person, but that is how you are treating me, mooeypoo. Don't appreciate it. I am pretending nothing, poo.

[ajb]

In the widest sense

 

Observation = Interaction with the environment.

[padren]

Thanks, Klaynos. From your response, it isn't clear how into Quantum Physics you are. The experiment was done with electrons, not photons. Care to share your view in more detail?

 

In the example I posted (a 5 minute You Tube video with the delightful Dr. Quantum -

), the electrons' observation is mysterious. In the two slit experiment, it appears to be triggered simply by the presence of a measuring device (recording which slit the electrons entered), but that still does not explain how matter can observe anything. Do they have eyes? Psychic powers? Or are electrons a 3rd dimensional manifestation of other dimensional entities that are equiped to observe, confer and act?

I recently addressed this question in a post here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45939&page=4#75

 

 

I hope it helps answer some of your questions on the nature of this dilemma. It is not a matter of the particles acting like they "know" they are observed, but an issue arising from the fact that when we deal with the "very small" any attempt to measure them interferes with them - thus it's a mechanical problem, not a philisophical one.

I feel strongly that the particles - whether they be electrons or not - have an awareness, a consciousness, if you will. The Quantum physicists who have performed this experiment agree that each electron decided which slit to enter and whether or not to behave as matter or waves (energy). Then there is also the fact that they ALL decided which slits to enter and took sides. When they were observed, there wasn't a straggler among the lot. Group mind? ESP? There was obvious conferring going on.

 

In fact, it is my belief that absolutely everything that exists has a consciousness, from the Universe as a whole, to stars, to insects, to the tiniest of particles - my so-called teeny tinies. I have reason to believe this, too.

Strong feelings of how something works - whether ultimately correct or wrong - almost always interferes with the discovery of the process. If your convictions are correct, then the simple exploration of principles will reveal that your conclusions are correct regardless of whether you have strong feelings or not. Strong feelings interfere - we may avoid a theory we feel is on the wrong track and runs contrary to our convictions, only to realize much later it supports our original conviction. That certainty almost always pulls us in one direction or another when we should always follow the direction of where facts and observation lead us without bias for where that may go.

 

For this reason I recommend "suspending judgment" and trying to explore the concepts without concern for how they may impact your convictions or lend/detract credibility from them. It's a very useful exercise that can only help your theory if it is in fact accurate, or alternatively find a better theory in the event your original one is not.

As an aside, the fact that those electrons displayed both properties of matter and energy is fuel to my idea that dark matter and dark energy are one and the same.

 

See? No weird stuff here. Well, no weirder than Quantum Physics is all by itself.

I am certainly out of my depths on this one, I'll leave that to others.

I found his remarks and the moving of my thread to be ridiculing. It doesn't matter what you think of him. I don't know either of you.

 

As for questions, I would answer them happily but was not asked any questions, mooeypoo. swansont asked me how I would test my hypothesis, didn't he/she? Truth is, I am not a cosmologist, nor a mathemetician. Secondly, did I say my idea was a hypothesis? I did not. Did I say it was a theory, as you yourself suggest? No, again, I did not.

 

Further, see my response to Klaynos. I am not a stupid person, but that is how you are treating me, mooeypoo. Don't appreciate it. I am pretending nothing, poo.

 

Honestly, Mooey isn't treating you like a stupid person. Perhaps you felt she was patronizing you, but I assure you she was merely trying to politely explain how ideas are discussed here and help you learn about the community - she is not a disrespectful person.

Her statements are quite understandable as you are new here and may not be up to speed on the conventions of how we discuss topics.

 

 

 

The simple fact of the matter is you have an idea and you want help with the physics, as you stated. You (1) speculate that dark energy and dark matter are the same thing. That's fine, but how do we test this? How can see verify if this is true or false? At this time, the only way I know how is to either perform an experiment that converts one into the other (difficult with modern technology) or, at least prove that it is supported mathematically.

The conversion of matter/energy was first defined mathematically before it was demonstrated experimentally, and it would seem like the best place to start however I don't believe we have very good mathematical models for either dark energy or dark matter at this time. Until we can observe their behaviors in detail, we can't create mathematical models that explain their behaviors.

 

Second, when you bring "thought waves" into the equation it gets far more complex. No such thing as a "thought wave" has ever been detected, measured and as such ever defined, let alone modeled. The brain emits low levels of EM radiation but at such low levels detectors have to be placed directly on the head just to detect them.

 

How can we help in that regard when we don't know what a "thought wave" is or how to measure one? If you could get the double-slit experiment to react to thoughts alone - then it would be measurable. Then we could examine the interaction, and explore how the interaction was occurring. Until we can see some interaction though, it's really hard to explore the interaction. It's nothing personal and it's not a statement against your idea - it's just the bare bone requirements so we can work with your idea.

[Klaynos]

Thanks, Klaynos. From your response, it isn't clear how into Quantum Physics you are.

 

I've a masters degree in it.

 

The experiment was done with electrons, not photons. Care to share your view in more detail?

 

It's actually been done with both, and many other things including bucky balls (shells of carbon atoms very very big). You were talking about "the light particles" which means photons.

 

It is easier to discuss the observation with electrons.

 

To detect which slit the electrons have gone through you need to place some detector at one of the gates, the easiest form of detector you can place there is a light gate of some kind, what will happen here is the electron will have to interact with a photon for your detector to know which slit it has gone through, this interaction is how the electrons "knows" whether it has been observed or not.

 

In the example I posted (a 5 minute You Tube video with the delightful Dr. Quantum -

), the electrons' observation is mysterious.

 

It depends on the measuring device.

 

In the two slit experiment, it appears to be triggered simply by the presence of a measuring device (recording which slit the electrons entered), but that still does not explain how matter can observe anything. Do they have eyes? Psychic powers? Or are electrons a 3rd dimensional manifestation of other dimensional entities that are equiped to observe, confer and act?

 

None of the above. The observation is some form of interaction, it depends on the detector as to the nature of this interaction.

 

I feel strongly that the particles - whether they be electrons or not - have an awareness, a consciousness, if you will. The Quantum physicists who have performed this experiment agree that each electron decided which slit to enter and whether or not to behave as matter or waves (energy). Then there is also the fact that they ALL decided which slits to enter and took sides. When they were observed, there wasn't a straggler among the lot. Group mind? ESP? There was obvious conferring going on.

 

In fact, it is my belief that absolutely everything that exists has a consciousness, from the Universe as a whole, to stars, to insects, to the tiniest of particles - my so-called teeny tinies. I have reason to believe this, too.

 

As an aside, the fact that those electrons displayed both properties of matter and energy is fuel to my idea that dark matter and dark energy are one and the same.

 

See? No weird stuff here. Well, no weirder than Quantum Physics is all by itself.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I found his remarks and the moving of my thread to be ridiculing. It doesn't matter what you think of him. I don't know either of you.

 

As for questions, I would answer them happily but was not asked any questions, mooeypoo. swansont asked me how I would test my hypothesis, didn't he/she? Truth is, I am not a cosmologist, nor a mathemetician. Secondly, did I say my idea was a hypothesis? I did not. Did I say it was a theory, as you yourself suggest? No, again, I did not.

 

Further, see my response to Klaynos. I am not a stupid person, but that is how you are treating me, mooeypoo. Don't appreciate it. I am pretending nothing, poo.

[anomalies]

I kind of object to my posts being merged, since I cannot be sure that the context hasn't changed with this procedure. Is this done all the time here?

[Klaynos]

I kind of object to my posts being merged, since I cannot be sure that the context hasn't changed with this procedure. Is this done all the time here?

 

It is an automatic process done by the forum software. There is no human intervention.

[Sisyphus]

I kind of object to my posts being merged, since I cannot be sure that the context hasn't changed with this procedure. Is this done all the time here?

 

Whenever you post twice or more in a row with no other posts in between, the forum software automatically merges them and notes that it has done so. Any comments or complaints about this should go in the sugestions, comments, and support subforum.

[anomalies]

I've a masters degree in it.

 

 

 

It's actually been done with both, and many other things including bucky balls (shells of carbon atoms very very big). You were talking about "the light particles" which means photons.

 

It is easier to discuss the observation with electrons.

 

To detect which slit the electrons have gone through you need to place some detector at one of the gates, the easiest form of detector you can place there is a light gate of some kind, what will happen here is the electron will have to interact with a photon for your detector to know which slit it has gone through, this interaction is how the electrons "knows" whether it has been observed or not.

 

 

 

It depends on the measuring device.

 

 

 

None of the above. The observation is some form of interaction, it depends on the detector as to the nature of this interaction.

 

Thanks for explaining that you have a Masters degree in QP.

 

Well, I am not experienced in this matter, of course. I referenced that specific experiment, as outlined in the very entertaining and explanatory video, hosted by Dr. Quantum. That video spoke of electrons, which is thought of as matter, and described how it reacted as energy does in the form of waves. I don't think it would matter if it was photons either, since they are both considered particles, hence matter (even though this experiment clearly shows that elementary particles such as electrons and photons can be both matter and energy - well at least those used in this experiment that react in this manner).

 

You say, "...the electron will have to interact with a photon for your detector to know which slit it has gone through, this interaction is how the electrons "knows" whether it has been observed or not." But what if a random photon were to "interact" with an electron? I mean - no device is present. Have there been any experiments in this vein? Further, the steps involved are more complex than that, aren't they? The interaction, decision making as a group and action taken all imply more than a simple interaction in my opinion. Also, "knows?" Using the word 'know' implies consciousness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know). There is no question about it.

 

When you say, "It depends on the measuring device," what exactly do you mean? Does the type of device used produce a different result consistently? Do you have an online reference I can go to?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It is an automatic process done by the forum software. There is no human intervention.

 

Thanks for explaining that, Klaynos. I feel better now.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Whenever you post twice or more in a row with no other posts in between, the forum software automatically merges them and notes that it has done so. Any comments or complaints about this should go in the sugestions, comments, and support subforum.

 

I was answering 2 different people/posts. They should turn that off. Thanks, Sisyphus.

[Sisyphus]

I think there's some confusion about matter vs. energy and particles vs. waves. That's not the same thing. Energy is a property of things, a capacity to do work. It's not waves. Waves have energy. Similarly, "particle" /= "matter." What we call particles take the form of waves, that are simply discrete in form. All "particles" (electrons, photons, whatever) are this.

[Klaynos]

Thanks for explaining that you have a Masters degree in QP.

 

Well, I am not experienced in this matter, of course. I referenced that specific experiment, as outlined in the very entertaining and explanatory video, hosted by Dr. Quantum. That video spoke of electrons, which is thought of as matter, and described how it reacted as energy does in the form of waves. I don't think it would matter if it was photons either, since they are both considered particles, hence matter (even though this experiment clearly shows that elementary particles such as electrons and photons can be both matter and energy - well at least those used in this experiment that react in this manner).

 

OK, you're confusing things here. Energy is a property of stuff, not a thing itself.

 

Classically there are two types of thing, waves, and particles. You can probably picture both of them in your head. Electrons were thought of as particles and photons as waves.

 

The original evidence for photons being waves was youngs double slit experiment. BUT this experiment can also be conducted with electrons meaning that electrons are not particles, but we know they also have particle properties. So they have the properties of both (the same can be said for photons or any small thing, atoms, bucky balls etc...). This is completely against what we see in the macroscopic world, how can something be both a particle and a wave at the same time? Well the universe has not obligation to be easily understandable by us.

 

You say, "...the electron will have to interact with a photon for your detector to know which slit it has gone through, this interaction is how the electrons "knows" whether it has been observed or not." But what if a random photon were to "interact" with an electron?

 

It would create noise in the interference pattern. This is observed.

 

I mean - no device is present. Have there been any experiments in this vein? Further, the steps involved are more complex than that, aren't they? The interaction, decision making as a group and action taken all imply more than a simple interaction in my opinion.

 

Not really, the interaction results in a momentum change for the electron, all interactions do. This results in no interference.

 

Also, "knows?" Using the word 'know' implies consciousness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know). There is no question about it.

 

Yes, it is poor use of language, but language tends to fail somewhat when discussing these things, you really need to look into it mathematically.

 

When you say, "It depends on the measuring device," what exactly do you mean? Does the type of device used produce a different result consistently?

 

The interaction type will depend on the measurement device used. Any observation at a slit will destroy the pattern though.

 

Do you have an online reference I can go to?

 

I'd suggest hyperphysics and wikipedia are your starting points.

[swansont]

I found his remarks and the moving of my thread to be ridiculing. It doesn't matter what you think of him. I don't know either of you.

 

Your post was moved as a matter of protocol, and the questioning along the lines of "how would you falsify this?" is standard scientific investigation. I gave an example based on your post.

 

When you state

"I believe they are made up of extremely tiny particles with special properties that are affected by thought waves"

 

you aren't asking a question about science, you are speculating. Now, this thought is almost certainly wrong, because there have been a lot of people who have tried to establish that "thought waves" (or equivalent) are real, and they have failed. But most scientific hypotheses are wrong, and are discarded. People who do this a bit learn to not become too attached to an idea that is likely to be shot down (though some learn more quickly than others). People who become possessive of their conjectures have a harder time accepting that they are wrong.

 

Whether you continue to post ideas or not is up to you. You have to be willing to learn that an idea is flawed, and why, rather than expecting people to be "yes-men" and recognize the difference between criticism and ridicule.

[walkntune]

OK, you're confusing things here. Energy is a property of stuff, not a thing itself.

 

I see why my ideas were confusing about energy.Just curious to know though how do we know stuff is not a property of energy? In other words how do we know that energy didn't exist first and then become stuff?

I know I could be wrong but just curious to how they know materialism came first and energy is just a property of it?

I always saw it the other way because energy is the culprit that never wants to be destroyed?

[Sisyphus]

I guess the same reason an apple isn't a property of "redness?" You can probably semantically twist it enough to work, but not, I don't think, without losing sight of the original question.

[walkntune]

I guess the same reason an apple isn't a property of "redness?" You can probably semantically twist it enough to work, but not, I don't think, without losing sight of the original question.

 

This is not the same because an apple is made up of energy and matter. If you take the apple from its energy source it will die and the apple material itself will actually change into a form of energy through decomposition.

You take redness away you might have a green apple. You take energy away and you won't have an apple.

[insane_alien]

and the missing the point completly award goes to .... drum roll please... walkntune.

 

you do understand the concept of an analogy right?