tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post9168159194586715296..comments2023-10-29T13:33:18.452+00:00Comments on Anthony Peake's Cheating The Ferryman Blog Page: The Mystery of the Photon (01)Anthony Peakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12199138770925114308noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post-28499946133426133312009-05-17T14:48:00.000+01:002009-05-17T14:48:00.000+01:00Ken: Great to see you again my friend, you need to...<B>Ken</B>: Great to see you again my friend, you need to get over to FORUM and be involved there.<br /><br />Now, I see a slight problem with your experiment, unfortunately!<br /><br />"<I>Take a pair of unobserved, entangled particles and separate them in boxes with spin-detectors.</I>"<br /><br />How can we separate and then isolate the particles without observing them? The simple existance of a device capable of observation itself has shown to collapse the waveform and indeed if you look at my response to Tony above, and in more detail on FORUM, hopefully you will see why there is a big flaw in the experiment before it has even begun.<br /><br />What has been shown, however, is not that the initial observation of a particles "<I>spin</I>" determines the other but that its change immediately is in-formed to the other at distances beyond even speed of light communication.Karl Le Marcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01402028443489182100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post-73528712961136473022009-05-17T14:40:00.000+01:002009-05-17T14:40:00.000+01:00FORUM: Light - Collapsing the wave function and th...<A HREF="http://www.anthonypeake.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=639" REL="nofollow"><B>FORUM: Light - Collapsing the wave function and the retina</B> [by Tony]</A><B>Tony</B>: The very simple answer is <B>DECOHERENCE</B>. The rather more complicated answer is probably best given in person over an ale or several but fundamentally Light acts, as do all other collections and properties of fundamental sub-atomic energy particles, as a dynamic cohered probability. <br /><br />It is the observation and thus De-Coherence of the quantum event that produces the location in either time or space and thus is presented as a '<I>real</I>' thing, be it a particle or phaneron. <br /><br />Indeed, if you revist my <A HREF="http://www.anthonypeake.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40&sid=765bfbcfcc4a4c0805c4246f40f8eea2#p129" REL="nofollow"><B>Peake-Le Marcs Yapping Dog Experiment</B></A> you will see what I mean. <br /><br />It's worth considering, also, that in the case of Young's Double-Slit Experiment (<I>and similar</I>) that there is <B>always</B> an act of observation. If the experiment is conducted in the presence of a consciousness then the light appears to move as a particle. Even if a device capable of observing (<I>ie, a camera etc</I>) is there in place of an actual consciousness then it still moves as a particle.<br /><br />Now, whether it does or not is open to debate, because what gives us the data that it did move as a particle?<br /><br />Answer is when a consciousness observed the results!<br /><br />If no consciousness observed the results, would the results instead have shown wavelike properties? <br /><br />When no observable consciousness or device is present, light appears to travel as a waveform, showing the coherence of particle energy objective to subjective consciousness.<br /><br />Subjective consciousness decoheres the quantum wavefunction and created a flash-point of solidity in the fuzzy wave potential. <br /><br />Or Something!<br />*smile*Karl Le Marcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01402028443489182100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post-36244627674772346512009-05-15T13:26:00.000+01:002009-05-15T13:26:00.000+01:00I like this one.
I look forward to Karl's comment...I like this one.<br /><br />I look forward to Karl's comment.<br /><br />T.Anthony Peakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12199138770925114308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post-61112482703345836202009-05-14T20:02:00.000+01:002009-05-14T20:02:00.000+01:00Of course, I'm implicitly saying that the ink blob...Of course, I'm implicitly saying that the ink blob from the first detector CANNOT be in a superposition of states and gets collapsed to a definite color upon observing the second detector's result. I know my experiment sounds like Schroedenger's cat all over again but the meaning of a macroscopic object being in a superposition is a bit nebulous to me. Plus, I think the ink being in a superposition would require the atoms in the ink to be entangled with the original particle and whether they are is not clear to me.<br /><br />I'm sure Karl will straighten out all these details of my experiment ;-)kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08372377464212144183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467236423735891536.post-79978271162723055752009-05-14T19:42:00.000+01:002009-05-14T19:42:00.000+01:00Hello, Anthony! Here is a thought experiment that ...Hello, Anthony! Here is a thought experiment that seems to me may distinguish whether a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave function. What do you think of it?<br /><br />Take a pair of unobserved, entangled particles and separate them in boxes with spin-detectors. The spin-detectors are connected to ink-jets which will squirt a blob of black ink onto a piece of paper if the spin is up and a blob of red ink onto the paper of the spin is down. Allow the spin on one particle to be "detected" but keep the paper unseen by a conscious observer and remove it from the system.<br /><br />Now, if this detection is sufficient to collapse the wave function, then the other particle's spin has been determined. In this case, measuring the other particle's spin will always produce the opposite color ink blot to the one measured first.<br /><br />If this detection is NOT sufficient to collapse the wave function, then, I submit, the paper removed from the first detector will be blank every time this experiment is repeated. Since the particle has no spin until observed but lives in a superposition of states, no spin can be detected unless the wave function collapses. If no spin was detected, the paper cannot have an ink blob on it.kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08372377464212144183noreply@blogger.com