Do we live in a real, physical world? Aka "The collapse of the wave function"

Some of you might have heard of the double slit experiment. Particles pass through a wall with two slits
and form an interference pattern on the screen they hit afterwards. The question is: How does the particle know which spot to hit in order to form that pattern. Also before it hits the slits it behaves like a wave. This wave seems to contain the information of all different spots the particle can hit. Only when the particle features are necessary it behaves like a particle, i.e. when it hits one the the slits. A behaviour which reminds me strongly on a LOD functionality used in computer games. One of the strangest things with that experiment is, that if you position a particle (can be photons, atoms, electrons, etc. pp. even molecules like fullerens)detector right next to the slits the observed pattern changes to two columns instead of an interference pattern. Behaviour like this points massively into the direction that we live in a simulation.

Resolution of reality: Why is energy and mass always a multiple of the Planck constant? There are no steps in between these amounts of energy or mass. Reminds me strongly on pixels on a computer screen but here in a more sophisticated, multidimensional appearence.

Even on a larger scale: Why is it possible to perceive our earth both as a planet sphere or something with a bigger diameter? The observations and measuremnts of different people seem to contradict. As an example: How can you see the pyrenees full shape from the canigou heigths just outside of Marseille? That should not be possible on a sphere with a ~6400 km radius.

Strange dreams: Why can we dream of things we never experienced? Combined with the fact that you not aware of your own ego in most of the dreams, do we share a common pool of information or even consciousness when dreaming. Why are there no mirrors in dreams?

…

Why is it so strainious to think about these things and why do become these thoughts so easily elusive?

Do YOU really think you are real? Even Elon Musk states “There is a 99 % probabiltity that we live in a simulation”.

Does it make any difference?

1 Like

well, as a physicist I am tempted to reply to this. So here are my thoughts…

The answer, in a broad understating, is “probability”. For example, if you flip a coin, it can land on either heads or tails.

So, mathematically, there is a 50% chance of either getting a heads or a tails on a coin flip. Can we physically prove it? Yes, it has been done, after a lot of coin flips, say about 10,000, you end up with number close to 50% of the tosses being Heads or Tails. This number gets better with more coin tosses.

Now, does that mean that each coin flip knew what its previous flips were and somehow compensated so they would arrive at a number close to 50%? No.

Analogously, the particle does not have to “know” where it has to land to form the pattern, nor does it have to know where the other particles went to somehow compensate itself to form the pattern.

Moreover, the double slit experiment, although is a testament of quantum mechanics and probabilities at play, the shingle slit experiment is bit more intuitive as to how a wave function of a particle might look like when passing through a slit.

This is one of the common misconceptions that it is either a particle or a wave. But in reality, it is both at the same time. It is both a particle and a wave at any point in space-time. So, all fundamental particles have their wavefunctions representing both their position and momentum in space-time. Simply put a particle is what we call for a “ripple” in the fabric of space-time. Hence the term wave-particle duality. Of course, certain experiments are relatively “easier” to explain mathematically by considering either the phenomenon as a particle or as a wave.

In the double slit experiment, the photon actually passes through both the slits at the same time, be it interpreted a particle or a wave. Now it is apparent that the way we see the universe, same particle cannot exist at two points in space at the same time, so for intuitiveness, we stick with photon being a wave - specifically its wave function. This wave function only collapses when a measurement is made, and that happens when it either hits some form of a detector or a screen. Merely passing through the slits does not collapse the wavefunction.

In some ways, it is true. As the size of the so called “particle” increases or becomes more complex (like in case of molecules), the wave function of such particles have a single very high peak at their position in space-time. So the wave function and its behaviors are much different compared to their small and sub-atomic counterparts - which have a broad and squashed down wave function.

I do not see how this could relate to us being a simulation.

But I can neither agree nor disagree that we live in a “simulation”, for what exactly a “simulation” is has not been properly defined. For example is it still a simulation if you use electrons to make some complex calculations? or is it already something “real”?

For this, the most definite answer is refraction of light. Air is a medium and the density of air at different positions causes light to “bend” and hence the lights from the mountain ranges bend and reach the observer giving them the illusion that they are looking “straight” at the mountain ranges.

This post is already too long, so I will stop :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

You might want to try one of those, instead of the blue ones :slight_smile:
image

Yes, they call it “Fata Morgana” when it appears over such vast distances. The trouble is that its supposed to be a very hot day and -most remarkable- the picture of a Fata Morgana is upside down, whereas the Pyrenees top is where is belongs. More than 250 miles from 9100 ft elevation!

1 Like

While I can’t speak to the shape of the Earth, as I haven’t personally done these experiments or been high enough off the ground to know (and I haven’t sifted through each and everything NASA has put out, though I do know that their nickname of “Never A Straight Answer” is more than well-earned), I can give you some potentially more redpilled thought points.

As for the simulation bit, that never made sense to me when people say “that seems not like how reality should behave, therefore this is a computer world.” No.

But, we have identified a “quantum fluid/foam” as the primary constituent of all expressions of energy (e.g. matter). Which, when combined with the “Relativistic Drag” that a pair of geosynchronous satellites (forgot their names) detected, as well as the descriptive properties and/or attributes of the Quantum Fluid/Foam and even Dark Energy, we basically have confirmed, scientifically, that the Ether/Aether definitively exists and is just called something less taboo. The satellites were basically performing the Michelson-Morley experiment in space (which is what they wanted to do, but couldn’t).

Some people want the Ether to be made of particles, because they feel that a “non-physical” explanation for anything is somehow unscientific and incompatible with anything except “ugh, religion and whateverrrr.” Personally, I think it could help bridge the gap between the sciences and philosophy of many kinds. But, I digress. All the greatest innovators in science and technology firmly believed the ether was a total necessity for any of their theories to work (such as Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, etc. etc.), until Einstein came along and flip-flopped on the issues about as much, if not more than Darwin did about the existence of God. Eventually, Einstein figured he could perform much of his math the same without accounting for the ether, so he left it out. Since then, it has become considered settled science to not acknowledge it as anything but disproven and unnecessary.

This conception of a fundamental medium being an all permeating, “non-physical” constituent of the universe is helpful in that it can simplify greatly what String Theory was trying to achieve and unify the sciences of the very small (quantum mechanics) with the sciences of the very large (Relativity).

So, what is matter, then? Matter, as suggested by thing like the famous Energy = Mass x Lightspeed^2 equation, is essentially (and this is kind of an oversimplification) structured energy. Basically, the spatial medium becomes polarized and vibrates and the frequency and amplitude (and any other properties) define, according to natural law, a particular structure. Heh, literally (“particular” - particle). These structures, based on their nature and properties, can form compound structures, giving us atoms and molecules. The best example of this that I can think of is the demonstration of cymatics with sand and similar. Basically, it’s like the inverse of String Theory’s model, where they have “strings” of vibrating strands of energy that vibrate by passing through tangled up spacial dimensions (usually in the Calabi-Yau model). In this case, energy is vibrating (or the vibration of) the spatial mmedium.

Another way to look at it is with a problem I finally figured out about this: if space and time are concepts, instead of interactive “objects”, and the fundamental medium is permeating all space and is the fundamental constituent of all matter, then how do objects move through space without tearing the fabric of the base medium?? The answer was in Professor Laithwaite’s “magnetic river” demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU). Essentially, it’s not the medium that moves, but the physical information. This is largely why the speed of light/causality is “unbreakable”. But, essentially, its like how the wave shape can move horizontally while the metal rods can only move vertically.

Anyways, then you can further get a kind of " unified field theory" by finding different explanations that can reduce the number of forces down to just the electromagnetic one and it’s variants. Easy-ish to do with gravity, since it has already been officially/formally “demoted” to an effect of the presence of mass, instead of a true force. As for the exact way it ties into EM, you can go with Wal Thornhill’s dipolar particle idea, which I’m not a fan of (him or his model), or you can go with crazy Ken Wheeler’s idea of it being incoherent dielectric acceleration (a normal permanent magnet is an example of a coherent field). And with the Structured Atom Model (SAM) becoming more viable, you could remove the Strong Nuclear force (and maybe the Weak Nuclear force?), as well.

Nothing super concrete, yet. But with SAM, Electric Universe models, and views on electromagnetism as held by Maxwell, Tesla, and Charles Proteus Steinmetz (the man who got Tesla’s AC generators to stop exploding when other people tried to replicate them), we have some pretty good places to work. Especially with more and more serious interest in these lines of questioning growing, recently, we will likely start getting more actual scientific contributions (experiments and mathematical models and descriptions). Some point to the SAFIRE project being one of them, but there’s a lack of transparency with them that tells me we should be inspired by it, but not put all of our eggs in that basket.

Well, since your post was rambling (and it’s kinda late, here), I figure my reply can be, as well. Hope that helps or is at least interesting to you. If you want more links and stuff from me, I’m happy to provide what I reasonably can.

1 Like

Interesting contribution. Led me to discover kind of effect in Armory3D. I tried to make a walkthrough file in order to view the calabi yau from all sides. Everything perfect in Eevee, but when i started it with F5 in Armory both seem to have vanished in some other (sub-planck-length) dimension. Can´ t see them any more, gone! Try it yourself and solve the (easy!) riddle. Lil mind teaser.


cantseeyou_sv_kj1.blend (3.1 MB)

Let´s see who finds the culprit first.

Hi, you definitely noticed the error messages it spills out when you try to run your file (something with kha and graphics and errors when using two point lights; ah, and armory does not like curves). I set it up enew and now its working.
new_yau 2022-01-23 17-45-07(1)

Just doesn’t look as stunning as your picture anymore :wink:

1 Like

SOLVED! The winner is: Noris_Club !

Thanks for trying that. Yes, you have to convert the curves to meshes.

That´ s it. It does look different in your setting, cause in the course of dissecting you appended the Calabi Yau to a new clean file and lost my world settings. Check my blend file. To convert the old file in order to render properly just go to Object-Convert-Mesh after selecting the Calabi Yau curves.