Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist

[fractional slacker]

Way beyond my understanding of math or science. It seems to be a claim that can not be disproven. Not sure that makes it a proof.

Would like to hear any thoughts from those who have a background in science.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html

[CrazyCanuck]

People aren't going to belief unless they experience themselves.  Even with proof people refuse to believe it,

[Wesley]

My attempt at a translation/summary:

 

This is based on the idea that your mind creates the world around you. Then when you believe that all of reality is a fiction of the mind, you create a plane of unfalsifiability by which you can make up bull and no one can say you are wrong..

 

All you need to do is accept that space and time are mental constructs and then space and time do not exist, therefore we never die and are all one.

[Pepin]

Calling this science is beyond misleading. Using the many-world's interpretation of QM and then proceeding to through a barrage of nonsensical claims on top makes this incoherent. That's how reading the article was for me, incoherent.

[Wuzzums]

Whenever the words "quantum physics" are used next to any outlandish claim you can be 100% certain it's all BS.

What scientists would know an awful lot about quantum physics? Physicists.

What scientists know as much about quantum physics as the average person? Every other scientists, Lanza being one of them.

Who conceived a new theory of everything with strong roots in quantum physics? Robert Lanza.

 

But let's not decide who's right based on degrees. Let's use empirical data. If Robert Lanza were to break his neck in a forest and there's no one there to observe it, does he still die?

[Libertus]

Quantum Physics Fallacy 

Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics.  One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

[TheRobin]

haha yeah, since we can never be sure if something is really behaving like a particle or like a wave, we need a new governmental agency to regulate that of course, else those damn photons are just gonna run wild and chaos will certainly follow in it's path

[CrazyCanuck]

By looking at the universe from a biocentric's point of view, this also means space and time don't behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does. 

In summary, space and time are 'simply tools of our mind.'

Once this theory about space and time being mental constructs is accepted, it means death and the idea of immortality exist in a world without spatial or linear boundaries. 

 

 

 

 

 This is true already scientists knows that time is an illusion.  If you were able to travel fast enough on earth you can distort time.  scientists used a very accurate clock to measure time.  Then they took the clock on a very fast air plane.  They found time to be distorted in several  thousands seconds.  If one was to go to the black hole and hang around there for one hour at light speed and return 50 years would have passed.  The person who travelled during that time will not have aged 50 years yet everyone else would have changed 50 years time.

[Wesley]

You are simultaneously saying that time is an illusion and that it can be affected in the world. This is like saying "this apple is an illusion because I can eat it and then it disappears".

[CrazyCanuck]

This is what the scientists says.

 

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

[Wesley]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

The article is also garbage. Saying things like "his science" and begging the question "if you accept A then..." He also doesn't like the concept o time so instead invents his own concept of "nows" with no proof except analogy.

 

As stated earlier, being a scientist and spouting garbage doesn't mean the garbage now has credibility.

[CrazyCanuck]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityThe article is also garbage. Saying things like "his science" and begging the question "if you accept A then..." He also doesn't like the concept o time so instead invents his own concept of "nows" with no proof except analogy.As stated earlier, being a scientist and spouting garbage doesn't mean the garbage now has credibility.

That's your opinion at the moment.  It may change in the future as science advances.

[Pepin]

 This is true already scientists knows that time is an illusion.

 

That doesn't imply that time is an illusion, rather that time is more complex and relates to relative velocity and the speed of light. To be more specific, prior to the special relativity, the relation of time in two difference reference frames was thought and measured to be the same, meaning:

 

 

t'=t simply means that the time measured in your reference frame and the time measure in someone else's reference frame can be assumed to be the same. If there are two clocks that are synced up, they will not deviate from each other. In the case of special relativity we have the equation

 

Which shows that there is a difference in the time measured by each person, and it depends on their relativity velocity. If you are moving at relative velocity of 150,000 m/s in respect to someone else, if you measure your clock it will be normal, but if you measure the other person's clock it will be slowed. The same will be true for the other person in that they will measure their clock to be normal and your's to be slowed. As the graph shows, the effect really only becomes noticeable around 1/3 the speed of light, meaning that t'=t is accurate enough for most everything on a large scale.

 

Hope this helps.

 

---

Just read the article you posted, and its a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or accepted at the moment, and the argument wouldn't exactly invalidate time, it would just move it to the conceptual realm and the mechanics of what we call time would be instead substituted for time. I partly read a book that seems to have the same conclusion and similar evidence and reasoning, and I'm quite open to these claims, but I feel like it really only has an impact on how physicists contemplate and understand time.

[CrazyCanuck]

That doesn't imply that time is an illusion, rather that time is more complex and relates to relative velocity and the speed of light. To be more specific, prior to the special relativity, the relation of time in two difference reference frames was thought and measured to be the same, meaning:

 

 

t'=t simply means that the time measured in your reference frame and the time measure in someone else's reference frame can be assumed to be the same. If there are two clocks that are synced up, they will not deviate from each other. In the case of special relativity we have the equation

 

Which shows that there is a difference in the time measured by each person, and it depends on their relativity velocity. If you are moving at relative velocity of 150,000 m/s in respect to someone else, if you measure your clock it will be normal, but if you measure the other person's clock it will be slowed. The same will be true for the other person in that they will measure their clock to be normal and your's to be slowed. As the graph shows, the effect really only becomes noticeable around 1/3 the speed of light, meaning that t'=t is accurate enough for most everything on a large scale.

 

Hope this helps.

 

---

Just read the article you posted, and its a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or accepted at the moment, and the argument wouldn't exactly invalidate time, it would just move it to the conceptual realm and the mechanics of what we call time would be instead substituted for time. I partly read a book that seems to have the same conclusion and similar evidence and reasoning, and I'm quite open to these claims, but I feel like it really only has an impact on how physicists contemplate and understand time.

That's your opinion.  You maybe having some bias since you aren't trying to disprove god doesn't exist because it was true more likely  what buddhism and other religion teaches could be true.  It maybe not be widely acceptable. In history even if proven is given the acceptance takes time.  For example scientist  refuse to the theory of quasicrystals for almost 30 years!

[Pepin]

That's your opinion.

 

No, I'm making an argument that is devoid of opinion and not only has reason and evidence to support it, but empiricism as well.

 

You maybe having some bias since you aren't trying to disprove god doesn't exist because it was true more likely.

 

Bias is irrelevant to my argument as well as deities. That is my entire claim in response to this article as well.

 

What buddhism and other religion teaches could be true. It maybe not be widely acceptable. In history even if proven is given the acceptance takes time.

 

True compared to what and true in what sense? Certain claims, most claims, or all of it together? For instance, a Christian will claim that the Bible is true as a whole, but will say that there are some mistakes such as the earth being at the center of the solar system.

 

For example scientist  refuse to the theory of quasicrystals for almost 30 years!

 

What?

[Bulbasaur]

So much quantum woo comes from abusing this 'observer effect' proved by the double slit experiment. The effect is real and admittedly unintuitive, but the interpretation is often misrepresented by nonphysicists and charlatans due to the language usually used to describe it.

 

 

 

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. 

Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave, This means it can go through both slits at the same time.

This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that behaviour of the particle changes based on a person's perception and consciousness.

 

How does one "watch a particle?" How does one watch anything? Well, in the case of eyesight we collect photons which have bounced off or been emitted from the object. For a subatomic particle you need to rely on some kind of precision instrumentation to "watch" it, but the same principle applies. There is no such thing as passive detection. Something has to interact with it in order to detect it, whether by bouncing another particle off it or absorbing it or some similar process. One need not invoke the presence of consciousness to understand that this interaction itself influences the particle being measured. From John Gribbon's "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat,"

 

 

In quantum physics the observer interacts with the system to such an extent that the system cannot be thought of as having independent existence. By choosing to measure position precisely, we force a particle to develop more uncertainty in its momentum, and vice-versa; by choosing an experiment to measure wave properties, we eliminate particle features, and no experiment reveals both particle and wave aspects at the same time; and so on.

...

Today, the key features of the Copenhagen interpretation can be more easily explained, and understood, in terms of what happens when a scientist makes an experimental observation. First, we have to accept that the very act of observing a thing changes it and that we, the observers, are in a very real sense part of the experiment.

 

Emphases mine. It's easy to equivocate "observation" with the idea of 'looking at something' and then extrapolate from that into grand theories of biocentrism, but what's happening is much more mundane. Think of a blind man tapping around with a cane trying to find a tennis ball. When he hits the ball with the cane, he feels the impact and learns where the ball had been, but the impact itself moves the ball. Note that nothing above suggests that observing the system creates it; it only changes the outcome compared to what it would be if it had not been interfered with. 

 

So it's not that seeing something makes it any more real than if no one was there to look at it. Seeing just means you're collecting and processing the photons that have bounced off it, but the photons influence the object regardless of whether you collect them. Particles are always interacting with each other, and "observation" in the context of the double slit and similar experiments is just a particular type of facilitated interaction.

 

 

It is the believe that life and biology are central to reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way round. This suggests a person's consciousness determines the shape and size of objects in the universe.

 

This really makes no sense chronologically, but it also violates the foundational principle of gauge invariance from which practically all successful models of physics are derived. That is, the observed laws of physics essentially require objectivity to be true. I'd recommend reading Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" for more on this.

 

 

By looking at the universe from a biocentric's point of view, this also means space and time don't behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does. In summary, space and time are 'simply tools of our mind.' Once this theory about space and time being mental constructs is accepted, it means death and the idea of immortality exist in a world without spatial or linear boundaries.

Woah, what a leap! This is an interesting one, because it manages to take what's basically a correct framing and present it as something novel which leads to something totally nonsensical. Space and time are mental constructs; all models of physics are. The enterprise of physics is to create rigorous conceptual models to attempt to explain observations of existence. Space, time, mass, energy, and so forth are concepts defined specifically within the model frameworks. The models of physics are like maps which attempt to describe reality and make predictions, but whatever "space" and "time" actually are is distinct from our concepts of them. All we can say is whether or not the model makes successful predictions. This has absolutely nothing to do with death, immortality, or "a world without spatial or linear boundaries," which is just a word salad.

Also, the comments under that article are just painful. Here's one Stefan would enjoy:

 

 

 

Sounds like philosophy rather than science.

 

And regarding quasicrystals, I believe he means that scientists didn't think they could exist until they were eventually demonstrated.

[CrazyCanuck]

 

And regarding quasicrystals, I believe he means that scientists didn't think they could exist until they were eventually demonstrated.

 

Nope people refuse to even give a chance to demonstrate. Because the properties of these crystals makes previous theories wrong it was rejected.  

[Bulbasaur]

 

 

And regarding quasicrystals, I believe he means that scientists didn't think they could exist until they were eventually demonstrated.

 

Nope people refuse to even give a chance to demonstrate. Because the properties of these crystals makes previous theories wrong it was rejected.  

 

 

Quasicrystals are well accepted. All it takes is a trip to Wikipedia.

 

 

Since the original discovery by Dan Shechtman, hundreds of quasicrystals have been reported and confirmed. Undoubtedly, the quasicrystals are no longer a unique form of solid; they exist universally in many metallic alloys and some polymers. Quasicrystals are found most often in aluminium alloys (Al-Li-Cu, Al-Mn-Si, Al-Ni-Co, Al-Pd-Mn, Al-Cu-Fe, Al-Cu-V, etc.), but numerous other compositions are also known (Cd-Yb, Ti-Zr-Ni, Zn-Mg-Ho, Zn-Mg-Sc, In-Ag-Yb, Pd-U-Si, etc.).^[34]

There are two types of known quasicrystals.^[32] The first type, polygonal (dihedral) quasicrystals, have an axis of eight, ten, or 12-fold local symmetry (octagonal, decagonal, or dodecagonal quasicrystals, respectively). They are periodic along this axis and quasiperiodic in planes normal to it. The second type, icosahedral quasicrystals, are aperiodic in all directions.

 

I'm also not following how people would go about 'refusing to give others a chance to demonstrate' something like this. It's true that the original claim was controversial and initially met with opposition. Evidently, it was not demonstrated convincingly since it was an extraordinary claim. But eventually it came to be accepted, as additional groups were able to reproduce the original result. This is true of most big advances that upend existing ideas about what is or isn't possible, but that doesn't somehow add credibility to every other extraordinary claim. The claim is either supported by the arguments and evidence, or it isn't. In this case it just self-detonates, because it relies on a fallacious misrepresentation of quantum mechanics. 

[CrazyCanuck]

Quasicrystals are well accepted. All it takes is a trip to Wikipedia.

 

 

I'm also not following how people would go about 'refusing to give others a chance to demonstrate' something like this. It's true that the original claim was controversial and initially met with opposition. Evidently, it was not demonstrated convincingly since it was an extraordinary claim. But eventually it came to be accepted, as additional groups were able to reproduce the original result. This is true of most big advances that upend existing ideas about what is or isn't possible, but that doesn't somehow add credibility to every other extraordinary claim. The claim is either supported by the arguments and evidence, or it isn't. In this case it just self-detonates, because it relies on a fallacious misrepresentation of quantum mechanics. 

 

 

That was just an example how scientists can slow down the advances in science. Anything newly recovered will be rejected quickly without much thought it takes a long time for people to accept it.  It wasn't that there wasn't proof in the example I gave it was people refuse to even see the proof.  Either you didn't read what I wrote or you can't comprehend what i wrote.  Also i said he discovered not invented.  

[Bulbasaur]

 

 

That was just an example how scientists can slow down the advances in science. Anything newly recovered will be rejected quickly without much thought it takes a long time for people to accept it.  

 

Scientists are definitely fallible and just as prone to bias and prejudice as anyone else. But this is why science as a whole tries to self-correct through an emphasis on reproducibility and peer-review, although peer review certainly has its issues and can end up perpetuating biases as seems to be the case with quasicrystals.

 

 

 

It wasn't that there wasn't proof in the example I gave it was people refuse to even see the proof. 

 

A single paper shouldn't be considered proof of anything outside the realms of formal logic and mathematics, but yes, it does seem that in this case critics were rejecting the claims out of bias rather than rigorous inquiry. 

 

 

 

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you can't comprehend what i wrote. 

 

It is certainly difficult to comprehend what you wrote. 

 

 

 

Also i said he discovered not invented.  

 

I never used the word 'invented.'

[CrazyCanuck]

Scientists are definitely fallible and just as prone to bias and prejudice as anyone else. But this is why science as a whole tries to self-correct through an emphasis on reproducibility and peer-review, although peer review certainly has its issues and can end up perpetuating biases as seems to be the case with quasicrystals.

 

 

A single paper shouldn't be considered proof of anything outside the realms of formal logic and mathematics, but yes, it does seem that in this case critics were rejecting the claims out of bias rather than rigorous inquiry. 

 

 

It is certainly difficult to comprehend what you wrote. 

 

 

I never used the word 'invented.'

 

 

Was it a single paper?  I highly doubt when he fought nearly 30 years.  Also science also corrupted especially in medical, technology and safety.  Peer review is pointless these days.  Why?  Because who funds these scientists.  If I make a product and fund the research for that product it is a conflict of interest.  But this is going on a lot.  For example cell phone safety.  Scieintists getting millions in funding to do research, however since they find something that states their product isn't safe the fund comes to a halt.  So scientists will only find studies to prove that a product is safe otherwise he could lose funding or even a job.

 

Of course with things like string theory it is going to be very hard to prove because our advanement in science is very limit.  This is why I'm agnostic.  Hard to prove there's a god but it's hard to disprove when what we know is every limited.

[Bulbasaur]

I don't think we're really even disagreeing at this point, as far as the issues with the current state of research. It seems to be heavily influenced by powerful special interests and relies heavily on government funding. It's interesting to think about how it might be different in a true free market, because big companies would still want to fund research that would show favorable results. But if there were consumer-funded organizations doing research in competition with industry-funded research, people could decide for themselves who had the better credibility.

[CrazyCanuck]

I don't think we're really even disagreeing at this point, as far as the issues with the current state of research. It seems to be heavily influenced by powerful special interests and relies heavily on government funding. It's interesting to think about how it might be different in a true free market, because big companies would still want to fund research that would show favorable results. But if there were consumer-funded organizations doing research in competition with industry-funded research, people could decide for themselves who had the better credibility.

I know I just wanted to make a statement.  

[FriendlyHacker]

There is a mixture of facts and assumptions on the article link and the journalist goes out of her way to mix fact and assumption into the same box, don't have the time to go through each assumption right now though.

 

Will just say that you don't need to directly involve quantum physics to have afterlife. If you have a powerful enough computer, would be possible to actually transfer your mind to it and live in a virtual reality inside it, or make many clones of your mind, or even live a thousand years in a second. What I said above is far fetched and can only be predicted based on Moore's law, which has no real science to it. So again, all of these ideas are assumptions and not facts about the Universe.

 This is true already scientists knows that time is an illusion. 

 

Time is no illusion, time is simply a coordinate in 3d space, that is, it's the 4th dimension,

 

Easier to understand by example: When you have a date, you need pin point the location of the date in a 3d space, like the fancy restaurant down the street, that is not enough though, you need an extra coordinate for it to make sense, you need to know the time, and expect the other person to also follow the same coordinates as you do, else it will be dinner for 1.

[FriendlyHacker]

If you redefine life as anything other than what the actual medical term means, you can say there is afterlife.

 

If you redefine God as a lump of coal, then yes God is very real.

 

Redefining words only cause confusion though and scientists should probably stop trying. Einstein talking about God has nothing to do with the God of the desert, he redefined the term by his very own perspective and people who do not understand this perspective are confused by it to this day.

 

A Journalist needs to get views on her articles though, else she will be fired, so she has more incentive for twisting someone's words till they sound more interesting and appealing. There are a lot of bullshit articles out there, written by reputable journalists, that are just filling space with things people want to read while containing very little meaning.

[CrazyCanuck]

If you redefine life as anything other than what the actual medical term means, you can say there is afterlife.

 

If you redefine God as a lump of coal, then yes God is very real.

 

Redefining words only cause confusion though and scientists should probably stop trying. Einstein talking about God has nothing to do with the God of the desert, he redefined the term by his very own perspective and people who do not understand this perspective are confused by it to this day.

 

A Journalist needs to get views on her articles though, else she will be fired, so she has more incentive for twisting someone's words till they sound more interesting and appealing. There are a lot of bullshit articles out there, written by reputable journalists, that are just filling space with things people want to read while containing very little meaning.

If I remember correctly he was asking himself, if I was god how would I create and design the universe.

[FriendlyHacker]

If I remember correctly he was asking himself, if I was god how would I create and design the universe.

 

That is the most terrifying assumption to my previous post to the one you've replied, something I don't even like to think about too much for fearing of going insane.

 

The dual wave/particle nature of the Universe, is how you would expect it to be if it was designed by a computer engineer. It behaves like it was not even there when not being observed, and behaves like a particle while being directly observed, that is, it behaves like single pixels.

 

If you ever played an open world video game, you know that the Universe is not really there, unless you happen to come across that particular area of it, and then characters, cars, buildings, etc pop into existence.

 

The thing is, if we can even imagine an advanced enough open world simulation technology, given enough time, wouldn't something as complex as our own reality be realistically simulated? And if such thing is even possible, how do we know if has not already happened? How do we know if we are not the ones who built it and this is some kind of disturbing entertainment that our future selves enjoy?

 

Only reason I sleep at night, is realizing I will probably never be able to tell the difference if this was true, so it does not fucking matter at all.

[Bulbasaur]

Will just say that you don't need to directly involve quantum physics to have afterlife. If you have a powerful enough computer, would be possible to actually transfer your mind to it and live in a virtual reality inside it, or make many clones of your mind, or even live a thousand years in a second. What I said above is far fetched and can only be predicted based on Moore's law, which has no real science to it. So again, all of these ideas are assumptions and not facts about the Universe.

 

The idea of a 'computer afterlife' is really intriguing, and raises a lot of interesting philosophical implications. This would be something like the intellectual property debate but applied to sentient moral agents.

 

What would it mean to "transfer" one's mind to a computer? I can only imagine it would involve making a digital copy of some sort, but then there's a continuity problem. if you copy something, the original doesn't then become the copy, even if they function identically. If my brain was destroyed in the process, it would seem to the digital me (and any observers) that I had simply been transferred into the VR. But my own individual experience would still cease, and a potentially immortal digital clone would simply replace me. I suppose this could be seen as immortality being impossible for us fleshies, but possible for our digital 'offspring.' 

 

Even if these digital people aren't the same individuals as their biological templates, if they were cognitively identical they would still be legitimate moral agents with all the ethical implications that carries. Then we would have to address the ethics of making or destroying copies of oneself or others. I suppose these would be parallel if not equivalent to the existing ethics around childbearing, but it might not be as obvious to people that destroying a copy is equivalent to killing a person. It's sort of like the idea of male disposability, but taken to an extreme. The movie Oblivion gives a pretty unsettling view of how bizarre this rabbithole goes. 

[Livemike]

"In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. 

Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave, This means it can go through both slits at the same time."

Nope, that's not what happens at all.  What happens is that whether or not the scientists watch it the pattern is the same.  It is a combination of the pattern you would expect if the photons were waves and the pattern expected if they were particles.  Getting such a basic fact wrong is not encouraging.  Neither is this:

"Lanza added that everything which can possibly happen is occurring at some point across these multiverses and this means death can't exist in 'any real sense' either.  "

This is simply wrong.  The fact that in another universe something is happening doesn't mean something else isn't happening here.  While it's true that, in a very small number of universes, something is massively against the odds happening to reverse or delay my death, that doesn't make my death in this universe any less likely.  Sure some subset of all the possible universes might have me live 1000+ years by some random quantum event(s).  But that event(s) is/are so unlikely that the chances THIS is one of those universes is much less than a trillion trillion trillion to one. So the effect on the relationship between death and the me in this universe is immeasurably small.  It is nowhere near true that death is made meaningless by the odd happenstances in parelle universes, even if they exist which they might not.  

[FriendlyHacker]

 

"In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. 

Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave, This means it can go through both slits at the same time."

Nope, that's not what happens at all.  What happens is that whether or not the scientists watch it the pattern is the same.  It is a combination of the pattern you would expect if the photons were waves and the pattern expected if they were particles.  Getting such a basic fact wrong is not encouraging.  

 

Strange thing is, If you setup an experiment to detect waves, it will detect waves. If is setup to find particles, it will find particles. It's both things at the same time, this dual nature of the Universe is fundamentally what quantum physics is about. Maybe you can't have two outcomes at the same time but the outcome can only be predicted if you consider that such thing can happen, and then try calculating the result statistically (wavefunction). Whether or not someone is watching will yield a different outcome, the more you watch the momentum, higher will be the standard deviation for speed (uncertainty principle). Trying to watch what a particle does will alter the particle, unless you can somehow watch it without causing the interference problem, how to not cause interference is the trillion dollar question and the key to quantum computing.

 

 

"Lanza added that everything which can possibly happen is occurring at some point across these multiverses and this means death can't exist in 'any real sense' either.  "

This is simply wrong.  The fact that in another universe something is happening doesn't mean something else isn't happening here.  While it's true that, in a very small number of universes, something is massively against the odds happening to reverse or delay my death, that doesn't make my death in this universe any less likely.  Sure some subset of all the possible universes might have me live 1000+ years by some random quantum event(s).  But that event(s) is/are so unlikely that the chances THIS is one of those universes is much less than a trillion trillion trillion to one. So the effect on the relationship between death and the me in this universe is immeasurably small.  It is nowhere near true that death is made meaningless by the odd happenstances in parelle universes, even if they exist which they might not.  

 

 

There's that saying in physics that anything that is not forbidden is mandatory. That is exactly like Moore's law for computer engineers though, it has no real predictability, it's an educated guess that seems to match reality, but still a guess. Same thing goes for Occam's razor and finding mathematical beauty in nature, it isn't necessarily that way and the fact that it seems to be is more of a curiosity.

 

But hey, don't listen to me about these things. My formal education only goes up to high school level.

[Pepin]

Hacker, if you're interested in physics and quantum physics in particular, I suggest this channel. You start to get a pretty good idea of what QM is. What is rather difficult for people who aren't familiar to get is that QM is a statistical theory in that it deals most with probabilities. Many people conclude that QM is random because of this, but this isn't true, it is predictable in the same way that flipping a coin is predicable. The probability of getting heads up or down is 50%, and though you can't predict if it'll be heads, but you can predict the probability of getting heads.

[FriendlyHacker]

Thanks for the link. Yeah, 50% is a probability, and so is 0,000000001234564%, as I said before QM is the most accurate theory ever devised, even though they use double nature, statistical analysis and don't really understand why it works, it still works.

[TheRobin]

I never quite get why it's called the dual nature of the universe when it's about the particle/wave thing. I mean, what would be the logical reason, that those are mutually exclusive in the first place?

 

And wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say that either one or both of these terms were not accurately enough defined beforehand, because now we have evidence that they're not mutually exlusive, so instead of mystifying the universe unnecessarily, why not go over our thoughts and concepts again and see if we can't make them fit reality by chaing them to a more accurate definition?

[Bulbasaur]

I never quite get why it's called the dual nature of the universe when it's about the particle/wave thing. I mean, what would be the logical reason, that those are mutually exclusive in the first place?

 

And wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say that either one or both of these terms were not accurately enough defined beforehand, because now we have evidence that they're not mutually exlusive, so instead of mystifying the universe unnecessarily, why not go over our thoughts and concepts again and see if we can't make them fit reality by chaing them to a more accurate definition?

 

I think this is a good way to look at it. Reality 'is what it is,' and we simply try our best to describe it. We had nice models for particle behavior and nice models for wave behavior, so our instinct is to describe these quantum observations of "wave-particle duality" as something paradoxical, but I think a better view is that they are different manifestations of some unified process which just happens to be less intuitive. 

[FriendlyHacker]

I never quite get why it's called the dual nature of the universe when it's about the particle/wave thing. I mean, what would be the logical reason, that those are mutually exclusive in the first place?

 

And wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say that either one or both of these terms were not accurately enough defined beforehand, because now we have evidence that they're not mutually exlusive, so instead of mystifying the universe unnecessarily, why not go over our thoughts and concepts again and see if we can't make them fit reality by chaing them to a more accurate definition?

 

It's called dual nature, because it's a beach ball that turns into a tsunami when you turn your back to it. And yes, it does not make any sense, nature couldn't care less about human notions of what is sensible.