• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Quantum mechanics blows my mind

O

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
The more I read about the simply unexplainable results that we observe down at the quantum level, the more I'm convinced that the true nature of the universe is going to blow our minds.

This must be absolutely exciting times for scientists right now. We are just beginning to understand so many things that are just so completely outside our realm of comprehension.
 
The latest idea I heard that blew my mind was the idea that the quantum "fuzziness" we see could be an indication that we are living in an advanced computer simulation (possibly created by humans in the "real" universe who are thousands of years beyond our technological understanding).. It is entirely conceivable that the processing power of the future will enable ultra realistic simulations with AI characters that would have no idea they were part of the simulation.

What does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Well, the reason the quantum wave functions don't collapse until observed is analogous to the way 3D environments in video games like Grand Theft Auto aren't rendered by the computer until the camera looks at them. Limitations in processing power make it advantageous for the game to not render the environments that are off camera, but only what needs to be rendered to satisfy the observer. Likewise, wave functions don't collapse, and the smallest objects in our world are not "solid" when nobody is looking/measuring because they don't need to be rendered until the sentient observers within the computer program decide to take a look. 😉
 
Last edited:
But how would you know the state of something before your "observed" it anyways? The only way around this I thought was the whole concept behind quantum entanglement?
 
I think quantum mechanics was started as a huge inside joke by the physics community. It's conceivable that a whole bunch of physicists got togther and decided that their world was just too boring, so they made it all up.
 
Cr0nJ0b said:
I think quantum mechanics was started as a huge inside joke by the physics community. It's conceivable that a whole bunch of physicists got togther and decided that their world was just too boring, so they made it all up.
Click to expand...

That's not at all conceivable. The math works out and a lot of things you use every day wouldn't work without some of this stuff being true.
 
totalnoob said:
The latest idea I heard that blew my mind was the idea that the quantum "fuzziness" we see could be an indication that we are living in an advanced computer simulation (possibly created by humans in the "real" universe who are thousands of years beyond our technological understanding).. It is entirely conceivable that the processing power of the future will enable ultra realistic simulations with AI characters that would have no idea they were part of the simulation.
Click to expand...

You should like electrical engineer and author Jim Elvidge ( http://www.theuniversesolved.com/ ) who talks about a variety of science and physics concepts, such as the idea that we could be living in a type of programmed reality:

"Everything that we interact with, everything that we see, could be generated by some kind of computational mechanism," similar to what was depicted in The Matrix, he posits. Further, with the direction we are headed in with video games, virtual reality, and brain-computer interfaces, we'll be able to create a completely different reality that is indistinguishable from what we now consider as real. "Then the question is, if we're going to be creating millions of those in 20-30 years time, how do we know we're not already living in one?"
=================
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
 
Last edited:
OneOfTheseDays said:
The more I read about the simply unexplainable results that we observe down at the quantum level, the more I'm convinced that the true nature of the universe is going to blow our minds.

This must be absolutely exciting times for scientists right now. We are just beginning to understand so many things that are just so completely outside our realm of comprehension.
Click to expand...


When Newton proposed his gravitational "force" it was extremely controversial. He gave no mechanical explanation for how gravity worked over distances and the term "force" was associated with the occult at the time. That's the kind of mind blowing experience I look forward to. All this crap about explaining the "true nature" and secrets of life, the universe, and everything is for religions and mystics.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
The more I read about the simply unexplainable results that we observe down at the quantum level, the more I'm convinced that the true nature of the universe is going to blow our minds.

This must be absolutely exciting times for scientists right now. We are just beginning to understand so many things that are just so completely outside our realm of comprehension.
Click to expand...

I think "unexplainable" is the wrong word. Non-intuitive would probably be a better word to describe much of the phenomena. It's almost like a religion where you have to take things on faith. However, unlike a religion, it makes a lot of predictions which can then be verified experimentally.
 
DrPizza said:
I think "unexplainable" is the wrong word. Non-intuitive would probably be a better word to describe much of the phenomena. It's almost like a religion where you have to take things on faith. However, unlike a religion, it makes a lot of predictions which can then be verified experimentally.
Click to expand...

Quantum mysticism isn't exactly a new idea, however there is no single mathematics or metaphysics that describes modern standard theory. It is an ad hoc collection that just happens to be incredibly accurate and describe most of what we observe. To suggest that all we need do is meditate on the equations and contemplate our navels is absurd.
 
The coolest thing about quantum mechanics is that they are now showing that even macro-sized objects can effectively be in two places at once.

I have always had a had time with this idea of one particle being in two places simultaneously.

My suspuspicion is that this is nothing more than an illusion or holography.

The are doing an expirement now where they are taking a glass sphere 40nm in size and inducing the sphere into being at two places at the same time.

Here is the link:
http://blog.ted.com/2011/06/02/struggling-with-quantum-logic-qa-with-aaron-oconnell/
 
totalnoob said:
The latest idea I heard that blew my mind was the idea that the quantum "fuzziness" we see could be an indication that we are living in an advanced computer simulation (possibly created by humans in the "real" universe who are thousands of years beyond our technological understanding).. It is entirely conceivable that the processing power of the future will enable ultra realistic simulations with AI characters that would have no idea they were part of the simulation.

What does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Well, the reason the quantum wave functions don't collapse until observed is analogous to the way 3D environments in video games like Grand Theft Auto aren't rendered by the computer until the camera looks at them. Limitations in processing power make it advantageous for the game to not render the environments that are off camera, but only what needs to be rendered to satisfy the observer. Likewise, wave functions don't collapse, and the smallest objects in our world are not "solid" when nobody is looking/measuring because they don't need to be rendered until the sentient observers within the computer program decide to take a look. 😉
Click to expand...

No. The reason quantum wave functions collapse when observed is because the observer causes the wave function's collapse. In other words, you cannot observe it without physically affecting the experiment.
 
Cr0nJ0b said:
I think quantum mechanics was started as a huge inside joke by the physics community. It's conceivable that a whole bunch of physicists got togther and decided that their world was just too boring, so they made it all up.
Click to expand...

What a surprise. Cr0nJ0b think it's all just a great big con job.

Have you ever heard the saying "If your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails"?
 
DrPizza said:
I think "unexplainable" is the wrong word. Non-intuitive would probably be a better word to describe much of the phenomena. It's almost like a religion where you have to take things on faith. However, unlike a religion, it makes a lot of predictions which can then be verified experimentally.
Click to expand...

Dear Lord, where would we be without pigeon holes? 😀
It's magic I tell ya! Prove me wrong.
 
totalnoob said:
The latest idea I heard that blew my mind was the idea that the quantum "fuzziness" we see could be an indication that we are living in an advanced computer simulation (possibly created by humans in the "real" universe who are thousands of years beyond our technological understanding).. It is entirely conceivable that the processing power of the future will enable ultra realistic simulations with AI characters that would have no idea they were part of the simulation.

What does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Well, the reason the quantum wave functions don't collapse until observed is analogous to the way 3D environments in video games like Grand Theft Auto aren't rendered by the computer until the camera looks at them. Limitations in processing power make it advantageous for the game to not render the environments that are off camera, but only what needs to be rendered to satisfy the observer. Likewise, wave functions don't collapse, and the smallest objects in our world are not "solid" when nobody is looking/measuring because they don't need to be rendered until the sentient observers within the computer program decide to take a look. 😉
Click to expand...

Your post brings up a very subtle point that our reality is dependent not only on mere observation but both observation and our location in space.

Einstein's work on relativity deals with this phenomenon and is what led to quantum mechanics.

I don't believe in the theory of the MATRIX or the ideat that our reality is a computer simulation because the amount of energy required to represent the 10^80 particles in our universe would be infinite. Also this just seems too complicated to be true. Truth should be simple and concise.
 
Last edited:
sarsipias1234 said:
Your post brings up a very subtle point that our reality is dependent not only on mere observation but both observation and our location in space.

Einstein's work on relativity deals with this phenomenon and is what led to quantum mechanics.

I don't believe in the theory of the MATRIX or the ideat that our reality is a computer simulation because the amount of energy required to represent the 10^80 particles in our universe would be infinite. Also this just seems too complicated to be true. Truth should be simple and concise.
Click to expand...

This Matrix-esque reality some think to be a possiblity could very well be a convoluted enough simulation to convince you that there acually are 10^80 particles out there. What if they are not there? We simply happen to have data that suggest there's a huge universe out there.

Just as video cards don't render non-visible parts of the game world - except for Crysis 2 🙂 - the universe might not be simulated in parts where it's not being affected by humans.

Another, not very new, thought is that the whole world could have been created several minutes ago along with all the information that we possess including past experiences and so on.

So the invalidity of such ideas is not that immediately obvious. I'm not aware of any method that could prove them to be invalid.
 
Last edited:
But intuitively this still feels wrong.

What about ray tracing techniques?

Ray Tracing completely retraces a photons path through space.

Nothing is left to an illusion. All is represented at regular intervals of time.

Ray Tracing is also much more efficient in parallel than any other technique.

I'll have to ponder that some more.

But just because Ray Tracing is simpler and more like fractals in their math, which represent nature like phenomenon, this feels more intuitively right to me.
 
Last edited:
Are people made of triangles? They can be modeled to a resemblance by using them. I'm just pointing out that intuition based on how things are approximated can be misleading.

Ray tracing is just such an approximation. It's like assuming all planets have a circular orbit. It's close, but the details that explain why orbits aren't precisely circular contain a deeper understanding of the fundamental factors involved.

That said, a breakdown in the value of intuition works both ways. A lot of the interpretations seem to be around just because we don't have any data that refutes them.
 
Mankind is limited by his perceptions of the macro world in understanding the submicro. All quantum mechanics does is describe things we cannot mathematically explain, to attempt to describe ensemble behavior by observable effects does not give understanding just a description. There is more basic understanding that all makes sense, arguing intelligent design to explain what we do not understand is like saying the Gods make thunder by bowling in the skies. I mean, maybe but unlikely.
 
totalnoob said:
The latest idea I heard that blew my mind was the idea that the quantum "fuzziness" we see could be an indication that we are living in an advanced computer simulation (possibly created by humans in the "real" universe who are thousands of years beyond our technological understanding).. It is entirely conceivable that the processing power of the future will enable ultra realistic simulations with AI characters that would have no idea they were part of the simulation.
Click to expand...

51:47: "It is We who have built the universe with (Our creative) power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top