The Nature of Reality

[SRL+]

I found this light hearted, round table discussion interesting as there are credentialed panelists from various disciplines. They speak to idealism vs. materialism, the “observer effect”, and theories as to alternative origins of consciousness. Perhaps one day there will be a language developed in which idealism will bridge materialism.

& while youtubing consider this

!

 

[Randall]

I found this light hearted, round table discussion interesting as there are credentialed panelists from various disciplines. They speak to idealism vs. materialism, the “observer effect”, and theories as to alternative origins of consciousness. Perhaps one day there will be a language developed in which idealism will bridge materialism.

When it comes to this topic credentials are nearly irrelevant. Where they are important is with issues of health and safety. For example, you want your heart surgeon or airline pilot to be qualified. However when contemplating the nature of reality, unless the philosopher also happens to be the one flying the plane or holding the scalpel, there isn't much chance for anything too serious to go wrong. Accuracy can be extrapolated using intellect alone. So anyone with a half decent brain can participate in a meaningful way. All that is required is for one to be able to support their reasoning with a valid chain of logic.

Interesting and at times entertaining videos above .

 

[Randall]

On the double slit experiment, if anyone else here is into this stuff, has anyone seen an explanation of the actual detector? I've looked around quite a bit and haven't found anyplace yet that explains how a detector placed at one of the slits can both detect a single particle and also allow the same particle to pass through to the target. Logically one would think that in order to detect a single particle, that particle would need to hit the detector, in which case we shouldn't be the least bit surprised to find the interference pattern disappear. After all, the only slit letting anything through would be the one without the detector. Surely it can't be that simple, but, personally, I need that issue explained before I start jumping to conclusions about duality. In the meantime, quantum entanglement ( spooky action at a distance ) seems to be a better example to use when discussing the nature of reality.

 

[SRL+]

This explains how to build your own experiment at home.

http://www.altair.org/TwoSlit.html

and then theres this

Two-Slit Experiments

 

[Randall]

This explains how to build your own experiment at home. http://www.altair.org/TwoSlit.html and then theres this Two-Slit Experiments

Thanks SRL, but I've seen all that before in one form or another. However I've yet to run across something that explains the question I posed above. Allow me to elucidate. Home experiments reveal the principles of the effect, but don't actually use single photons or single electrons because the equipment isn't capable of doing that. I've also seen several computer animations of the experiment, but nothing that describes the method and principle that allows the detector to both detect a single particle and allow that same particle ( wave form or whatever ) to pass through the detector undisturbed to the target.

Typically we simply see a simplistic portrayal where an artist inserts an eye or camera into the animation that is supposed to represent a detector. They then go on to describe that situation as causal of the collapse of the wave function, and from there some mystic or another claims that due to this effect of "seeing" the particle, it is consciousness itself that manifests reality.The problem with such interpretations is that for our eyes or a camera to detect a single photon, that photon has to strike the surface of our retina or the camera sensor where it's converted into energy that is sent down a signal path and registered. The photon has been absorbed. Therefore if you were to actually use such a detector in the double slit experiment, the detector will catch the particle and the particle will never never reach the target. Logically this should have the same effect as covering one slit, and consequently the interference pattern should disappear.

The missing information is therefore, how does the detector actually work to detect a single particle? Logically, if it cannot interact with the particle in some way it cannot detect it, and if it does interact with it in some way it must have some interactive effect, and that interactive effect may well be the cause of the change in the pattern seen on the target, not some mystical or mysterious force or circumstance. I'm presuming for now that the detection is done by some kind of super sensitive device that captures energy via induction. But enough for now. Your thoughts?

 

[SRL+]

I'm not sure if this will help. It comes from one of the many friendly folks over at the Physics Forum.

"The double slit experiment can be understood in a completely "classical" way by considering a definite particle passing through one of the slits while an accompanying guiding wave passing through both. A macroscopic pilot-wave system has reproduced this (and there is no trouble with observing the particle):

If one of the slits were closed, the wave would be disrupted and the pattern is not found. Additionally you can easily imagine a measurement technique so heavy-handed (i.e. a floating buoy measuring the surface deflection) that would also destroy the wave-pattern. No mystery here, just a particle AND a wave.

Another recent experiment shows how a complex underlying pilot-wave dynamics can underlay a simple statistical description via deterministic chaos:"

It's an interesting theory, however.., then you have this article in SA. BTW, there may be a forum member here that might be able to shed some additional light on this. I wonder what ancientsaturn would have to say.

New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle: Scientific American