Quantum

[sevens]

Hey,

Anyone seen 'What The *Bleep* Do We Know?'

[Kevin Solway]

Hey,

Anyone seen 'What The *Bleep* Do We Know?'

Yes, it's one of the worst, most mindless things I've seen in a long time.

The script often contradicts itself from one sentence to the next.

For example, one moment they are saying "Quantum physics is all about possibilities", and the very next moment they have someone saying that certain things really can be at several different places at the same time.

[sevens]

Kevin,

Do you believe the reports of yogis, shamans, buddhas and sorcerers being able to develop bi-location siddhis?

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin,

Do you believe the reports of yogis, shamans, buddhas and sorcerers being able to develop bi-location siddhis?

If a person can be at two places at the same time, then they should be able to demonstrate it. For example, they could be here talking to me now, and be where you are, talking to you, at the same time.

I don't beleive this has ever been demonstrated.

There is a sense in which an enlightened person is everywhere at the same time, since they identify with the whole. But that doesn't mean they can know anything that is happening anywhere in the Universe.

At least, I don't believe that has so far been demonstrated.

[sevens]

This hasn't been demonstated because the individuals that were capable of it were extremely rare, and lived in another time.

[Leyla Shen]

Lived in another time? What's living in another time to an individual that can be in two places at once?

[sevens]

Leyla,

There's a really cool book out entitled, 'The Holographic Universe.'

I can set my VCR :)

[David Quinn]

There is also the question of why a sage would want to bifuricate into two positions in the first place. Does he want to join the circus or something?

-

[Kevin Solway]

There is also the question of why a sage would want to bifuricate into two positions in the first place. Does he want to join the circus or something?
-

And why stop at being in two places at the same time. If you can do that, you should be able to spawn an infinite number of selves all over the Universe, simultaneously.

I'd like to see that!

[David Quinn]

He already is!

-

[Leyla Shen]

Well, sevens, I have always seen "objective reality" as illusion. Hence my insistence that people who bandy the terms illusion and delusion about, define them. You know, noone ever has, as I recall it.

It's no small ask.

[Matt Gregory]

Hey,

Anyone seen 'What The *Bleep* Do We Know?'

Yes, it's one of the worst, most mindless things I've seen in a long time.

Hey now, I thought it was good! It was a lot better than Dancing With Wolves!

The script often contradicts itself from one sentence to the next.

For example, one moment they are saying "Quantum physics is all about possibilities", and the very next moment they have someone saying that certain things really can be at several different places at the same time.

I don't get it, how is that a contradiction? And even if it is, what difference does it make? The way I see it, the movie about people exploring what is going on with science and stuff. I didn't see it as being a dogmatic movie.

[MKFaizi]

I have never seen it. My daughter has a cat named "Bleep."

I make many attempts to be in several places at once. Nature of my job. I have come close once or twice but not quite achieved it. I have thought that I did encounter myself going in a door while, at the same time, coming out.

Close but no cigar.

Faizi

[Kevin Solway]

The script often contradicts itself from one sentence to the next.

For example, one moment they are saying "Quantum physics is all about possibilities", and the very next moment they have someone saying that certain things really can be at several different places at the same time.

I don't get it, how is that a contradiction?

Saying that quantum particles really are in different places at the same time is a long way from talking about "possibilities".

The people who were presenting their views in this movie were not quantum physicists, but merely people (namely, "new age" followers) who are presenting their fanciful views about what quantum physics means. These views have little to do with the truth.

And even if it is, what difference does it make? The way I see it, the movie about people exploring what is going on with science and stuff. I didn't see it as being a dogmatic movie.

I wouldn't call it dogmatic, rather, it was an attempt to bamboozle people by presenting them with countless mystifying and contradictory things, in the hopes of attracting followers to their religion (ie, the new age religion).

It's like a Christian saying, "Look, Jesus really did walk on water, since the Bible says so, and he also raised people from the dead, which proves he was God, . . . and it must be right, blah . . . blah . . . ."

I think such a movie could be useful if it was approached intelligently and it had people who could offer intelligent comments on the subject material.

[avidaloca]

I wasn't able to get through watching "What the bleep" either due to the same reasons.

The commentators constantly said things that were either fairly average (i.e obvious or trite/mediocre) or outright inane and meaningless, like knocking a hollow piece of wood. This 'knocking of the wood' was their truth, and they wanted everyone to know about it. Who gives a toss?

They could take heart from George Eliot: "Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact."

[Matt Gregory]

Saying that quantum particles really are in different places at the same time is a long way from talking about "possibilities".

Oh, you mean it's a long way from talking about particles being in different possible places at the same time. Gotcha. They probably wanted to spice it up a little bit because any object that we don't know the exact location of is in multiple different possible places, but when we find it, then we actually see that it's in the place that it is.

[Dave Toast]

I think there's a misapprehension going on here.

The Uncertainty principle is for 'real'. It decribes a physical actuality, not a limitation of perception.

For example, were this not the case, Bose-Eistein condensation would be impossible.

[Kevin Solway]

The Uncertainty principle is for 'real'. It describes a physical actuality, not a limitation of perception.

For example, were this not the case, Bose-Einstein condensation would be impossible.

I've just read up about Bose-Einstein condensation, but it doesn't seem to prove that the uncertainties of the uncertainty principle aren't inherent limitations of perception.

Can you explain further?

In the Bose-Einstein condensation experiments they removed all the energy from some atoms, which then coalesced into a single fuzzy blob.

What meaning are you interpreting from that?

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle is brought about by the fact that our very observing of things influences our measurements, which limits the usefulness of those measurements.

[sevens]

It seems that the meaning behind the condensing of energy deficient atoms lies in the very act of perception itself. Without the energy production model of concentration, the external world lacks coherence - resulting in a near 'fuzzy blob.' Concentration is the primary energy source for all other faculties of the mind; as it provides distinction, separation, and catagorization.

The energy frequency that permeates our universe, giving it form and substance, must be the same as our own mind.

As within, as without.

(The master vibration, would be the synthesis of all of the other frequencies in our universe -- a truly cosmic symphony. If scientists could map the different vibrations, then the true essence of our universe could be tuned into.)

[Dave Toast]

The Uncertainty principle is for 'real'. It describes a physical actuality, not a limitation of perception.

For example, were this not the case, Bose-Einstein condensation would be impossible.

I've just read up about Bose-Einstein condensation, but it doesn't seem to prove that the uncertainties of the uncertainty principle aren't inherent limitations of perception.

Can you explain further?

In the Bose-Einstein condensation experiments they removed all the energy from some atoms, which then coalesced into a single fuzzy blob.

What meaning are you interpreting from that?

Like you say, virtually all the energy is removed from a bunch of squashed together atoms by cooling them to almost absolute zero. Because we can now know the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of all these atoms very precisely, we can no longer know their position (the conjugate variable of momentum) very precisely at all.

If it were the case that this was just a limitation of our perception, then we'd expect that the atoms' positions are actually definite but we just can't percieve them definitively, and that therefore, the atoms would carry on acting as though their position were definite. But that's not the case

In Bose-Einstein condensation, the atoms coalesce into a fuzzy blob and transition to a new distinct phase of matter because, in being cooled, the region in which each atom can exist changes from a sphere no wider than a few hundred nanometres to one of micrometres in diameter (one thousand times larger). In such a space, according to Copenhagen, thousands of atoms can overlap and thereby collapse into the same quantum state, producing a 'real' condensate. And that is what really happens.

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle is brought about by the fact that our very observing of things influences our measurements, which limits the usefulness of those measurements.

Well that is true in the case of some measurements and this led most to think along the same lines at first, even Heisenberg. But this phenomenon actually has nothing to do with Uncertainty. There are plenty of measurements that can be made upon one conjugate variable without directly effecting the other, like spin in an entangled state, for instance.

[DHodges]

In such a space, according to Copenhagen, thousands of atoms can overlap and thereby collapse into the same quantum state, producing a 'real' condensate. And that is what really happens.

I'm missing something - why that isn't prevented by the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

[sevens]

If you're able to condense thousands of atoms into the same quantum state, wouldn't you then be able to 'recharge' these same 'cluster' atoms into a stable form of renewable energy?

By using the same method, wouldn't you be able to provide an input/output interface for a quantum computer?

[Dave Toast]

Dave,

Because the Exclusion principle only applies to Fermions. Bose-Einstein condensates are made with, you guessed it, Bosons.

None of this poses any more threat to causality than water becoming ice does BTW.

[Dave Toast]

If you're able to condense thousands of atoms into the same quantum state, wouldn't you then be able to 'recharge' these same 'cluster' atoms into a stable form of renewable energy?

By using the same method, wouldn't you be able to provide an input/output interface for a quantum computer?

Bose-Einstien condensates are highly unstable.

[DHodges]

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle is brought about by the fact that our very observing of things influences our measurements, which limits the usefulness of those measurements.

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle arises from the fact that something like an electron or a photon is not inherently a particle or a wave. When you try to specify something about it that is very particle-like (like an exact position), then you be able to less precisely specify something that is wave-like (like frequency). It's not just a matter of measurement; if the particle is very localized, then its frequency is smeared out. If it's frequency is contained within a very small range, then it stretches out over a relatively large area.

Physicists call it the wave-particle duality.