Even Real Particles don't exist Aage Bohr

[rogerl]

This whole thread just turns out to be about semantics. People are arguing about whether something is real or not, but to be arguing about this you need some sort of definition of what counts as real.

There is no way that one could ever prove or disprove the existence of something in between detections- one model which explains existence where the particle "exists" between these two events and the same model where the particle only "exists" when it is detected are equally consistent, so neither theory is more or less "real" (haha!) than the other.

In other words, you may choose to say that your particle doesn't really exist in between these two states if you really want to, but I don't see what this achieves, especially since for it to have its future effect it must exist in some sense, even if it's not some place in space or time.

Oh. This thread is just about Extreme Copenhagen Interpretation proposed by Aage. His father proposed the more well known Copenhagen Interpretation.

So it is all about Quantum Interpretation.
What happens to the particle between emission and detection in the double slit??

Copenhagen "It's the wave function that travels and interfere. Before measurement position properties doesn't even exist.

Bohmian "The wave function is real and it influences the flight of the real particle"

Many World "The particle takes both path at once by world splitting"

Extreme Copenhagen (Aage) "Properties only exist during measurement, what happens in between don't have any reality"

Transactional Interpretation "There are handshake forward and backward in time between front and back..."

etc. etc.. so many quantum interpretations... experiments may be able to falsify some like Bohmian

 

[rogerl]

some more

Feynman Sum over Path "The particle takes all possible paths and the average is the one used

Consistent Histories "The path that manifests in between is what is consistent with the output"

Matrix Interpretation "What happens in between is just calculations in the computer, only measurement makes sense because it is then that output from the registers occur".

what else.. hmm... I wonder what is your favorite? My complain with Bohmian where the particle remains as particle is how does quantum tunneling work when particle remains as particle? therefore it's more likely that the particle doesn't exist as particle in between...

 

[Jamma]

I agree, some are falsifiable, but just saying that the particle only exists during measurement is different.

By definition of the word, we can only be sure of a particles existence in this world when we detect it, so, as I said, what do we gain from this perspective? It is not falsifiable and doesn't actually tell us anything useful, it's just semantics.

I think simply by the fact that detecting a particle tells us that future detection of it is possible (if we know roughly where the particle is going) then we should consider the particle to be real after the detection also, since if it no longer "existed" then we shouldn't consider a second detection of the particle to be in any way related to the first detection because that particle doesn't "exist" anymore, yet the two events are clearly related, and the particles existence, to me, existed in between the two events.

But as I say, that's just my stance, and is as unfalsifiable as Aage's description.

 

[Calrid]

some more

Feynman Sum over Path "The particle takes all possible paths and the average is the one used

Consistent Histories "The path that manifests in between is what is consistent with the output"

Matrix Interpretation "What happens in between is just calculations in the computer, only measurement makes sense because it is then that output from the registers occur".

what else.. hmm... I wonder what is your favorite? My complain with Bohmian where the particle remains as particle is how does quantum tunneling work when particle remains as particle? therefore it's more likely that the particle doesn't exist as particle in between...

Relational quantum mechanics.

As time goes by without resolution the list may become endless. Now that is a worrying thought!

Quantum tunnelling is easy enough I think as long as you remember that the integral is always a potential across the barrier and that a particle model will not suit all events. But then this just gets clouded by interpretation like anything else, it doesn't matter which interpretation you chose like Russian roulette: you will always end up alive if you miss the bullet.

 

[rogerl]

I agree, some are falsifiable, but just saying that the particle only exists during measurement is different.

By definition of the word, we can only be sure of a particles existence in this world when we detect it, so, as I said, what do we gain from this perspective? It is not falsifiable and doesn't actually tell us anything useful, it's just semantics.

I think simply by the fact that detecting a particle tells us that future detection of it is possible (if we know roughly where the particle is going) then we should consider the particle to be real after the detection also, since if it no longer "existed" then we shouldn't consider a second detection of the particle to be in any way related to the first detection because that particle doesn't "exist" anymore, yet the two events are clearly related, and the particles existence, to me, existed in between the two events.

But as I say, that's just my stance, and is as unfalsifiable as Aage's description.

If particles exist between the two events. And you believe an electron is always a particle. How come the electron rotating around the nucleus doesn't radiate? What explains quantum tunneling if particle remains as particle? Therefore it makes more sense if particle is not particle in between. Maybe Bohr is right. Only measurement is important.

 

[rogerl]

Relational quantum mechanics.

As time goes by without resolution the list may become endless. Now that is a worrying thought!

Knowing the right interpretation is important because it may let us predict new phenomenon and produce emergence that is not available in the old Copenhagen. Lee Smolin even believes it can give us key to quantum gravity.

 

[rogerl]

what has quantum gravity got to do with this? It's because quantum mechanics and general relativity may emerge from a theory totally different from both.. studying the foundation of QM can give us a clue to the third theory that can unite QM and GR and arrive at quantum gravity. Right now.. we are relying on string theory and loop quantum gravity and canonical quantum gravity and there is big possibility these are all wrong (source Lee Smolin Trouble with Physics and Moit Not Even Wrong)

 

[Calrid]

Knowing the right interpretation is important because it may let us predict new phenomenon and produce emergence that is not available in the old Copenhagen. Lee Smolin even believes it can give us key to quantum gravity.

Certainly don't deny that, that is my point. Can we know is a really frustrating Copenhagenism to get around though.

Gotta have ideas but... What dreams may come and will they be realized by experiment?

 

[Calrid]

what has quantum gravity got to do with this? It's because quantum mechanics and general relativity may emerge from a theory totally different from both.. studying the foundation of QM can give us a clue to the third theory that can unite QM and GR and arrive at quantum gravity. Right now.. we are relying on string theory and loop quantum gravity and canonical quantum gravity and there is big possibility these are all wrong (source Lee Smolin Trouble with Physics and Moit Not Even Wrong)

It's not even a possibility all of them remain undistinguished. The possibility is as yet unresolved.

Gravity schmavity.

Smolin is right in a sense and he acknowledges that even his ideas are not even wrong, which is a start. Woit likewise. House of cards "theories" are dangerously likely to collapse.

We are relying on dreams and moonbeams atm, genuinely hope that is not always the case.

Me want see universe not our universe.

 

[Jamma]

If particles exist between the two events. And you believe an electron is always a particle. How come the electron rotating around the nucleus doesn't radiate? What explains quantum tunneling if particle remains as particle? Therefore it makes more sense if particle is not particle in between. Maybe Bohr is right. Only measurement is important.

Huh, what? I didn't mention anything to do with the specifics of quantum physics, or whether the particle is a wave or not, that's not important, the statement is whether or not the thing exists between the detections and that is what I was addressing. Whether or not it is a particle doesn't have anything to do with whether it exists or not, unless this is your definition? (in which case, define a particle please)

 

[Maui]

Originally Posted by Drakkith
Zapper I understand what you are saying and I agree. I'm just trying to figure out why mbell is telling me photons might not exist and the electrons in my eye might be entangled with the electrons in the light bulb. Doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it won't make sense to you since you use an outdated classical analogy of localized particles that doesn't belong there.

The less misleading wording should have been "the photon field does not exist between emission and absorbtion". It still doesn't say what to exist really means, but you don't know either way.

 

[mbell]

Zapper I understand what you are saying and I agree. I'm just trying to figure out why mbell is telling me photons might not exist and the electrons in my eye might be entangled with the electrons in the light bulb. Doesn't make sense to me.

Hello again.

The issue I have with photons is that if they do exist, then according to time dilation they exist for no time whatsoever. You may call that a matter of semantics, but that to me does not describe any kind of existence at all. On the other hand, if you regard a photon from the frame of an observer like yours or mine, we say that a photon exists for as long as it takes to complete its journey. Fair enough. BUT is it not the case that the photon *only* betrays its existence once its (alleged) journey is complete? That is a question I asked and I remain to be enlightened (pardon the pun) on this matter. If it is true, the description of a photon begins to sound like a mere convenience to explain the phenomena that happen at either end.

I am not asserting that photons do not exist. I merely wish to know why you believe they actually *do* exist, and why they are actually necessary, given the above apparent paradox. And is it not enough to just accept that the electrons merely exchange energy, and bring Occam's Razor into play?

Further, I am not offering any explanation as to how a pair of remote electrons might exchange energy. I don't know enough physics to do that. I merely point out that remote changes of state in the form of entanglement is not something that worries physicists.

With regard to some of your other comments: Entanglement, like much of quantum physics, is no simple matter. And as for what might or might not be ridiculous, need I remind you that virtually all of quantum physics seems nonsensical at the macroscopic world.

 

[pallidin]

OK, let's try this:

It is a well known fact the the human eye has a "lens"
And, in fact many species with eyes have lenses.

The lens presupposes that external, incoming photons are to be focused.
With entanglement there would simply be no need for a lens at all !

It is also a medical fact that without a lens, or damage to it, the human eye does not perceive correctly, if at all.
This thus PROVES that the phenomenon of vision is due to external photons going through the lens and being focused. No entanglement here.

Edit: And seriously, if anyone argues against those obvious facts, I would consider this thread going absolutely nowhere.

 

[mbell]

OK, let's try this:

It is a well known fact the the human eye has a "lens"
And, in fact many species with eyes have lenses.

The lens presupposes that external, incoming photons are to be focused.
With entanglement there would simply be no need for a lens at all !

It is also a medical fact that without a lens, or damage to it, the human eye does not perceive correctly, if at all.
This thus PROVES that the phenomenon of vision is due to external photons going through the lens and being focused. No entanglement here.

Edit: And seriously, if anyone argues against those obvious facts, I would consider this thread going absolutely nowhere.

A lens presupposes no such thing. The lens produces a focused image on the retina. The image is a collection of electron jump events. It is those that are focused. You have not convinced me that photons are involved with that argument.

 

[khemist]

A lens presupposes no such thing. The lens produces a focused image on the retina. The image is a collection of electron jump events. It is those that are focused. You have not convinced me that photons are involved with that argument.

Why do we have to convince you that photons exist?

Shouldnt you have to prove they dont, seeing as the particle theory of light accurately predicts specific outcomes?

I fire a single photon (a quantized packet of energy) at a screen, I get a single blip on the screen.

 

[Calrid]

Hello again.

The issue I have with photons is that if they do exist, then according to time dilation they exist for no time whatsoever. You may call that a matter of semantics, but that to me does not describe any kind of existence at all. On the other hand, if you regard a photon from the frame of an observer like yours or mine, we say that a photon exists for as long as it takes to complete its journey. Fair enough. BUT is it not the case that the photon *only* betrays its existence once its (alleged) journey is complete? That is a question I asked and I remain to be enlightened (pardon the pun) on this matter. If it is true, the description of a photon begins to sound like a mere convenience to explain the phenomena that happen at either end.

I am not asserting that photons do not exist. I merely wish to know why you believe they actually *do* exist, and why they are actually necessary, given the above apparent paradox. And is it not enough to just accept that the electrons merely exchange energy, and bring Occam's Razor into play?

Further, I am not offering any explanation as to how a pair of remote electrons might exchange energy. I don't know enough physics to do that. I merely point out that remote changes of state in the form of entanglement is not something that worries physicists.

With regard to some of your other comments: Entanglement, like much of quantum physics, is no simple matter. And as for what might or might not be ridiculous, need I remind you that virtually all of quantum physics seems nonsensical at the macroscopic world.

No they do exist for some time, it's just if you tried to measure the photon in its own frame of reference (which is pretty much impossible) the time part of the equation would be undefined. This is a consequence of the maths though not an underlying reality where photons don't exist because that would be dumb and Einstein would probably of turned in his grave if you tried to suggest it. All we can do is measure the photon from our rest frame and see that it travels at c and that it does so in a fashion like a bullet from a gun in some circumstances, showing it is a particle like entity and in others it behaves like a spread out energy signature, or a wave. Firstly you would need to set up an experiment where the wave and particle natures were explained by something else. Without that this is just arm waving.

 

[Calrid]

A lens presupposes no such thing. The lens produces a focused image on the retina. The image is a collection of electron jump events. It is those that are focused. You have not convinced me that photons are involved with that argument.

So the brain receives a signal which is created by nothing, which then becomes sight. Stirling science there.

There is a measurable energy transfer going on in the refraction of the lens, it is not possible to say this is just a wave or a particle though, because all experiment disagrees that it is either.

No one needs to prove a particle exists, what you need to do is overturn the idea that it does, this is how science works. Einstein et al had to prove that wave particle duality existed, overturning the wave theory of physics before they tossed them the nod. What makes you special?

 

[khemist]

So the brain receives a signal which is created by nothing, which then becomes sight. Stirling science there.

There is a measurable energy transfer going on in the refraction of the lens, it is not possible to say this is just a wave or a particle though, because all experiment disagrees that it is either.

No one needs to prove a particle exists, what you need to do is overturn the idea that it does, this is how science works. Einstein et al had to prove that wave particle duality existed, overturning the wave theory of physics before they tossed them the nod. What makes you special?

My mommy says so!

 

[Calrid]

My mommy says so!

Yo moma? <insert yo mama joke here>

 

[rogerl]

Huh, what? I didn't mention anything to do with the specifics of quantum physics, or whether the particle is a wave or not, that's not important, the statement is whether or not the thing exists between the detections and that is what I was addressing. Whether or not it is a particle doesn't have anything to do with whether it exists or not, unless this is your definition? (in which case, define a particle please)

Yes you are right. Copenhagen says we must only focus on measurements. Extreme Copenhagen says it further what happens between measurements don't truly exist. I guess it is the same interpretation as the Matrix Interpretation where things before measurements are not located in the manifold (output of the computer) but is inside calculations. Had Aage watched Keanu Reeves The Matrix. He could have articulated it better. So Aage Extreme Copenhagen interpretation is simply a Matrix (computer simulation) Interpretation, right? Of course, this also occurs in the Holographic Principle where all of this 3D + 1 world is just a simulation something occurring in the horizon, but the problem here is there is no place to put the hologram. Maybe if we include some braneworld scenerio, they can propose some mechanisms.

So can we refute this Matrix/Aage quantum Interpretation? Let's take the case of H20 molecules and the electrons around the atoms. Before measurements, they should exist or else the atoms would just collapse. In the Matrix (Aage) Interpretation, before we measure them, the atoms are just numbers in the computer, what we can see are just the continuous water from larger view. In this case, the details of the electrons and atoms didn't really occur in spacetime (the subroutine that defines it is in idle mode.. to save processing power). Similarly, the photons between the suns and our eyes don't really exist in spacetime (but only in the Matrix computer) and it is when calculations pertaining to it suggest it is in our eyes that our photoreceptors got engaged. This is possible, thanks to the Matrix (Aage) Interpretation, refute this.

 

[rogerl]

What I meant was this. In a computer simulation, only interactions are outputted to the screen. We don't project every part of the calculation to the screen. For example, when we simulate sunlight reaching earth. We don't have to output event to every inch of the simulation space where the light travels in the simulation unless someone is measuring it say using a satellite halfway Earth and sun in the simulation, this is to save computer resources and power. Right guys. This is the essence of the Aage (Matrix computer simulation) Quantum Interpretation.

 

[Calrid]

Yes you are right. Copenhagen says we must only focus on measurements. Extreme Copenhagen says it further what happens between measurements don't truly exist. I guess it is the same interpretation as the Matrix Interpretation where things before measurements are not located in the manifold (output of the computer) but is inside calculations. Had Aage watched Keanu Reeves The Matrix. He could have articulated it better. So Aage Extreme Copenhagen interpretation is simply a Matrix (computer simulation) Interpretation, right? Of course, this also occurs in the Holographic Principle where all of this 3D + 1 world is just a simulation something occurring in the horizon, but the problem here is there is no place to put the hologram. Maybe if we include some braneworld scenerio, they can propose some mechanisms.

So can we refute this Matrix/Aage quantum Interpretation? Let's take the case of H20 molecules and the electrons around the atoms. Before measurements, they should exist or else the atoms would just collapse. In the Matrix (Aage) Interpretation, before we measure them, the atoms are just numbers in the computer, what we can see are just the continuous water from larger view. In this case, the details of the electrons and atoms didn't really occur in spacetime (the subroutine that defines it is in idle mode.. to save processing power). Similarly, the photons between the suns and our eyes don't really exist in spacetime (but only in the Matrix computer) and it is when calculations pertaining to it suggest it is in our eyes that our photoreceptors got engaged. This is possible, thanks to the Matrix (Aage) Interpretation, refute this.

No offence but it sounds like nonsense to me.

We can measure where light is not in all points of its path, we can measure where it is but that makes it behave like a particle. This says nothing about what happens in between and it is therefore impossible to refute this theory because for all I know magical moon beams turn into bananas in between.

This is another of those eternally philosophical interpretations that are not even wrong. Interesting but I cannot prove the moon is there when I am not looking at it so I cannot prove it is not.

Evidence of non existence of anything is a contradiction in terms, thus this is moot eternally.

To refute it all you need to do is nothing. Until it produces evidence (which is seemingly impossible) then it doesn't warrant refutation any more than many worlds interpretation does.

If you mean can I prove the photon exists, no but I can prove I can see and that is where we get stuck. Again it boils down to you or Aage to prove it, you're the one making the claim. It's not possible to refute this anyway.

Light is undefined before it is measured is about the only thing I can say about something that does not "exist".

 

[Drakkith]

It is the view of mainstream science that photons exist. Why? Because nothing else explains how light works better than a particle-wave duality of photons. Saying that none of science proves this to your liking means that you simply don't like it. There must be some force that causes the electrons in my retina to get energized and change states in order for me to see. Nothing else explains it better than photons, not even entanglement.

 

[rogerl]

It is the view of mainstream science that photons exist. Why? Because nothing else explains how light works better than a particle-wave duality of photons. Saying that none of science proves this to your liking means that you simply don't like it. There must be some force that causes the electrons in my retina to get energized and change states in order for me to see. Nothing else explains it better than photons, not even entanglement.

We don't see with our retina, but with our brain. But according to some neuroscience researchers, we don't see with our brain, somehow we need the subjective experience to feel and what we see. And even now no one knows how calculations in the neural networks can give rise to subjective experience.

Therefore because of subjective experience, I don't accept the Matrix (Aage) Interpretation. I think Qualia refutes it. But one may say the computer program included qualia output too.

Well. For years I kept thinking of all this but now I also agree with some of you that there are some things in life we can never know.. for example, the real quantum interpretation. So I'll just proceed to quantum gravity instead of spending time debating what happens before measurement which I admit it's hard to know.

 

[rogerl]

But the problem with quantum gravity is that contemplating on it make one go right back into quantum interpretation. The following is a paper by a colleague of Lee Smolin who stated how space couldn't possibily exist at the fundamental level.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1861

When you think of the C60 buckyball (60 carbon atoms) and fire this into a double slit, it still interferes, so did the C60 passes thru many paths like in Many Worlds or guided to one of the slits by Bohmian pilot wave or others? Remember C60 is a macroscopic object. Had Bohr knows this. Maybe he could think more. We know Copenhagen simply deals with measurements only. (Isn't it that half of physicists no longer believe in Copenhagen?) But when you are faced with quantum gravity where space may not exist. You are forced to think what if space didn't exist in the C60 atoms path that's why it can move thru many paths? But by "moving" is meant space so all this can really make one head spin.. lol.. when driving in lonely road, just think of the C60 atoms in the double slit or imagine you are the C60 atom and being sent to the slits. What would (it) you see?

 

[mbell]

No they do exist for some time, it's just if you tried to measure the photon in its own frame of reference (which is pretty much impossible) the time part of the equation would be undefined. This is a consequence of the maths though not an underlying reality where photons don't exist because that would be dumb and Einstein would probably of turned in his grave if you tried to suggest it. All we can do is measure the photon from our rest frame and see that it travels at c and that it does so in a fashion like a bullet from a gun in some circumstances, showing it is a particle like entity and in others it behaves like a spread out energy signature, or a wave. Firstly you would need to set up an experiment where the wave and particle natures were explained by something else. Without that this is just arm waving.

Thank you, Caldrid. This is the closest that anyone in this forum has come to providing a rational answer to the questions that I raised, and in particular the apparent paradox where a photon does exist in one frame but not in its own.

FYI, it is consistent with some Google results that I found yesterday with regard to photons/relativity. The following article gives some insight as to what might be going on.

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/quantum-weirdness-a-matter-of-relativity-part-1/"

 

[Calrid]

Thank you, Caldrid. This is the closest that anyone in this forum has come to providing a rational answer to the questions that I raised, and in particular the apparent paradox where a photon does exist in one frame but not in its own.

FYI, it is consistent with some Google results that I found yesterday with regard to photons/relativity. The following article gives some insight as to what might be going on.

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/quantum-weirdness-a-matter-of-relativity-part-1/"

Yeah that's another way of putting it although it might cause confusion if you said the photon was already where it was with instantaneous motion through space, in relative concerns because it would seem to naively at least contradict it's own laws. From its point of view its already where it was going because no time has passed and the length contraction meant the distance traveled was 0 also, from our point of view it travels at c. Actually saying that makes no sense does it, so I think undefined is a better way of putting it. I think I seem to recall Einstein saying pretty much that asking what time is like from the point of view of c is undefined. I will try and find the quote. It's something like the question itself is pointless because x.

Interestingly if light experiences everything at once its in a sort of superposition isn't it?

Meh prefer to just say its not worth getting hung up on peculiarities of maths, just call it undefined.

 

[Drakkith]

Meh prefer to just say its not worth getting hung up on peculiarities of maths, just call it undefined.

Agreed Calrid.

 

[Jamma]

Man, you physicists over-complicate everything!

 

[wawenspop]

Isn't sopmeone working properly on the MAtrix Interpretation? What experiment would prove it? (I might even fund it)

 

[rogerl]

Isn't sopmeone working properly on the MAtrix Interpretation? What experiment would prove it? (I might even fund it)

Brian Greene stated the following in his latest book The Hidden Reality:

To simulate not just individual minds but also their interactions among themselves and with an evolving enviroment, the computational load would grow orders of magnitude later. But a sophisticated simulation could cut computional corners with minimal impact on quality. Simulated humans on a simulated Earth won't be bothered if the computer simulates only things lying within the cosmic horizon. More boldly, the simulation might simulate stars beyond the sun only during simulated nights, and then only when the simulated local weather resulted in clear skies. When no one's looking, the computer's celestrial simulator routines could take a break from working out the appropriate stimulus to provide each and every person who could look skyward. A sufficiently well-structured program would keep track of the mental states and intentions of its simulated inhabitants, and so would anticipate, and appropriately respond to, any inpending stargazing. The same goes for simulating cells, molecules, and atoms. For the most part they'd be necessary only for simulated specialists of one scientific persuation or another, and then only when such specialists were in the act of studying these exotic realms. A computationally cheaper replica of familiar reality that adjusts the simulation's degree of detail on an as-needed basis would be adequate.

According to Matrix (Aage) interpretation. When when we look at other galaxies or neutron stars, they may just be empty. In other words, the entire Big Bang may be just a put on show to deceive us into thinking the universe was that big. Imagine if they made the limit only up to the moon. We could easily reach the cosmic wall and wonder what's beyond. So they made it virtually "infinite". But in the past, it's possible the stars were just little lights. When astronomy developed on earth, they improved the simulation to make those stars bigger. Also our laws of nature is mostly Lorentz Invariant so we can't track the edge of space or things. And also for easier programming aid. They made our QM observer dependent to offload processing power.

About experiments to prove this. Have you seen the movie Matrix where humans were all in gestational units in suspended animation and a few of them were able to get up from sleep. Similarly, some researchers said those UFO abductees who saw the Greys, etc. were people who were temporary awake in the real world and see the world for what it is (outside of the simulation we are all in).

If you give a million dollars to Brian Greene. Who knows. He may even temporarily quit superstring and focus on your programme. How much funds can you contribute for Matrix (Aage) Research? Are you a Billionaire?

 

[eloheim]

According to Matrix (Aage) interpretation. When when we look at other galaxies or neutron stars, they may just be empty. In other words, the entire Big Bang may be just a put on show to deceive us into thinking the universe was that big. Imagine if they made the limit only up to the moon. We could easily reach the cosmic wall and wonder what's beyond. So they made it virtually "infinite". But in the past, it's possible the stars were just little lights. When astronomy developed on earth, they improved the simulation to make those stars bigger. Also our laws of nature is mostly Lorentz Invariant so we can't track the edge of space or things. And also for easier programming aid. They made our QM observer dependent to offload processing power.
?

I think this is an interesting idea, but I sense an undercurrent of anthropomorphism (human-centered-ness) and dualism (the idea that the mind is some non-physical entity, separate from the body), like supposing that "we're humans and we're special with our special minds," and "all else in the universe is just mindless machinery."

For example, if humans evolved through a gradual process, did the Matrix Masters grandually build up their trickery of us at the same time? I just suspect when the line between what is conscious (in need of 'tricking'), and what isn't, is viewed (correctly) as a continuum, then the whole concept of such an illusion becomes much more complicated than it might, at first, appear.

 

[wawenspop]

I am looking for a simple experiment to prove that decoherence is a calculated algoritm and 'registers' output values of the algorithm on decoherence.
Yes, it is worth billions. who knows, anti matter may be matter bit shifted by one? (an easier route to nuclear fusion)

 

[ZapperZ]

Closed, pending moderation.