Quantum mechanics show that there is NO MASS...and thats a gamechanger

but also ultimately, our feeble little brains probably have no sense whatsoever of the real inner workings of the universe so i guess we amuse ourselves with our little persoanal pet theories - me inclided. but that's alright. doesn't really hurt to try to make sense of things.

Your brain is only as dense as the matter

wut

The church was not killing scientists in the late 19th-early 20th century. What are you even talking about?

Ok, wrong centuries, but you knew what I meant, anyway, you're right, everything is out in the open and there is no aether.



Last Edited by Isis One on 01/30/2013 02:04 AM

Hi, I am new to Quantum Mechanics. Can I ask something about Quantum Mechanics? (but 1st sorry about my poor grammar).

1) I read some science articles that says everything (matter or objects around us) that we are not looking at it (like we close our eyes) everything are in a soup of energy ? Did I got that right ? if yes then how come even I close my eyes and touch things that feels solid ?

2)About the double silt experiment, I tried it at home but could not see the interference pattern. Was it because I was looking at it (Quantum being observed causes the collapse of the wave function ?). How do I go about making that experiment work so that I could see the weird things that the scientists are talking about

3)Is QM saying that like right now if I close my eyes, the monitor in front of me can be anywhere - out in space of in another room, only when I open my eyes then the collapse of the wave make the monitor appears in front of me ? if yes, how did the scientist come to this conclusion ?

Thanks and please be gentle on me as I am new to QM

QM layman

1. Observation doesn't always have to be done by eye. Any of the five senses will do that for you.

2. Not really sure what you did with Young's interference expiriment.

3. Read up on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for starters... That just scratches the surface of your question. It isn't that your monitor is off galavanting all over the cosmos while you aren't looking at it. But the subatomic particles of it are, even while you are looking at the monitor as a whole.

Quantum physics is a really interesting subject, but it is still relativity young.

1. Observation doesn't always have to be done by eye. Any of the five senses will do that for you.

2. Not really sure what you did with Young's interference expiriment.

3. Read up on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for starters... That just scratches the surface of your question. It isn't that your monitor is off galavanting all over the cosmos while you aren't looking at it. But the subatomic particles of it are, even while you are looking at the monitor as a whole.

Quantum physics is a really interesting subject, but it is still relativity young.


Well...QM has almost 100 years of history now.....and its extreme well proven in terms of expirements, practical use etc.

Damn, I believed in gravitation...but now I'm de-programmed thanks to YT-videos (there's no gravity or anything) so now I can easily fly! Thanks GLP!

There is not only mass on the atomic level,
there is mass at the wave level.
Further, it will eventually be discovered that
time is matter and has mass as well.

Of course there is electronic signature
throughout, but there is also mass throughout.

QM phenomena (supposedly) only happen at the particle level (though apparently that is now being challenged) so anything larger than an atom will typically only obey classical mechanics.
Admittedly, the limit which divides QM from CM seems to be getting larger.

[link to www.nature.com]

it's tricky to do because you need very coherent light
(not a diffuse like a light bulb) and the double slits
have to be very narrow and close together.
here's some ideas (after i googled "how to do young's
double slit experiment" :)

[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.cavendishscience.org]
[link to www.wikihow.com]

[link to video.mit.edu]

1. Observation doesn't always have to be done by eye. Any of the five senses will do that for you.

2. Not really sure what you did with Young's interference expiriment.

3. Read up on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for starters... That just scratches the surface of your question. It isn't that your monitor is off galavanting all over the cosmos while you aren't looking at it. But the subatomic particles of it are, even while you are looking at the monitor as a whole.

Quantum physics is a really interesting subject, but it is still relativity young.


Well...QM has almost 100 years of history now.....and its extreme well proven in terms of expirements, practical use etc.


Considering that physics has been around for over 2,000 years, at least since the Archaic period in Greece (650 – 480 BCE) with the Pre-Socratic philosophers. Then quantum physics can be considered in its infancy. I do not dispute the fact that it is moving forward in leaps and bounds, and proving more of our models correct as time goes by. but as I said, this field of science is still relatively young when compared to other fields of physical science.

The more we understand, the less we know.

I don't think that segmentation of science is a good thing.
The overall result is argument amongst theoreticals.
Mine is better than yours.

To understand interactions... one must investigate and consider all possibilities, without prejudice.

This is not the way of the single-minded scientist.
The fund-based system is greatly lacking.
Falsification is a huge problem with grant-seekers.

I have often wondered what might be achieved.. if
the world's best and brightest were funded without bias.

If there is no mass - why can I not lift certain things?

The biggest discovery is truly that Neutrino's have mass.

It's all mathematics.

You can always divide.

Yes... in some ways.
But, what of Tesla..?

Yes... and therein lies the rub.

The Gregg Braden Video that someone posted goes into this. We are co-creating with the universe. As soon as we think of the next question, the next level/layer of uncertainty opens up....which is pretty cool.

Spot on.

Actually it means that "evolution" is "DISCOVERY"......meaning that the evolutionary jumps we take, actually happens when "we" discover something that actually has been there all the time....as a potential!

This means that - if we would - we could make "evolution" a developmental process, and not something depending on chaos.

....this is what is refered to as "Man as God"!

Some speculation is that the Higgs-Boson particle is not a particle, but a field. Basically it is the new name for the aether.

A soup of plasma and Birkeland Currents, with an underlying mesh of dormant electricity and magnetism.

agree

Does dark matter..?




DARK MATTER
[link to astro.berkeley.edu]

I believe that it is the master key to unlocking the
secrets of everything else.
Enter the medium into which it all comes together.
Matter, anti-matter, gravity..
the true nature of electro-magnetism in space.

Cosmic soup..

I'd have to say this is a good theory. Just looking at our "sky buddies" (fallen angels). They appear as pure energy, balls of light then(sometimes) transform into solid mettalic objects. If you happen to catch them at the moment of transformation they can't finalize the transformation and appear as gaseous bubbling metallic masses. Which is probably related to a little understood effect our observation has like the double slit experiment or the reason ED Ledskalin wouldn't/couldn't let anyone watch while he built coral castle. Our mere observation changes things for some reason.

Matter is energy, gravity is the effect of the draw of energy (4-Space/Ether whatever) the matter is consuming to maintain "physicality".

We're pretty close to understanding things that can be considered magic. Making things appear out of seemingly thin air ect.

Here's the deal. There is a qauntom state to the universe. Who gives it order? Who colapses the probability field? G-d does.

This is why you have all these new-age crackpots thinking that they can 'attract' whatever they want through positive thinking. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.

Thanks guys for helping me to understand more of QM (but I have to admits I am still blur about it)

Thanks for the link to Young's double silt experiment, I will try it again (i tried to use the quotes of your statement but it didn't work...sorry)

Niels Bohr once said 'Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it'...well I am shocked about QM but I still don't understand it

And Einstein once said 'I like to believe that the moon is still there when I am not looking at it' after Bohr theory suggested that everything in the world is an illusion. That really make me more blur, did he said that things when we don't look at it will dissolve in wave, only when we look at it then it will become a particle instead of wave like in Young's double silt experiment ?