Thread: Is quantum physics explainable by human perception?

If I observe my surroundings I find many connecting lines going to and from the objects I observe, I’ll call them visual lines because I can see them. When I think about things and people that are connected to me I have mental lines, even though I cannot see them. When I envision things I know exist but cannot see, like planet Mars, I have imaginary lines. These are all different types of connections with different velocities. When I think of particles, I have imaginary lines of connections, even though they are infinitely small. When I observe these lines I am connected to everything. There is a change when I try to imagine antimatter, I observe a blockage and cannot create a connection.
As explained from my observation, these connecting lines emanating from my being are similar to a light source emitting light rays. It is as if I am a generator generating these different sources of energy and emitting them into the cosmic sea.
Is this similar to the quantum wave from an observation perspective? If I concentrate on one specific thing, these multi observational lines seem not to be present.

Just to make it practical for everyone to understand what I am saying, look at anything in your surroundings, if you can see it that’s a connection. Then think about someone you know or love that is not there with you, another connection, now think about the planet Saturn, another connection.

maybe the poster has a form of Synesthesia

Synesthesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by PhDemon

I read this post while logged out and wish I hadn't. You start off by saying you can see invisible lines , the rest is just as bad -- are you deliberately posting nonsense or are you hard of thinking?

I made a human mistake in the first part of my post, if you are pointing that out to me thank you. Other from that I do not want to get into discussion with you because it does not bare fruit.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

maybe the poster has a form of Synesthesia

Synesthesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me ask you, do you have an connecting line of thought to someone not in your surroundings? Or do you have an imaginary connection to Mars. If so what do you call this connection?

There are all kinds of name for different kinds of people that have all different kind of experiences, I am sure you have one, maybe there is not yet a name invented for your specialty, but it really does not matter. If you can follow me it would be interesting, I will be ok.

What is the connection between the OP and the title of the thread ? They appear to have nothing to do with one another.

Just to make it practical for everyone to understand what I am saying, look at anything in your surroundings, if you can see it that’s a connection. Then think about someone you know or love that is not there with you, another connection, now think about the planet Saturn, another connection.

So. I have vision. I have emotions. I have intellect.

And?

Do you actually see these lines? Sounds like fun.

Originally Posted by Stargate

If I observe my surroundings I find many connecting lines going to and from the objects I observe, I’ll call them visual lines because I can see them. When I think about things and people that are connected to me I have mental lines, even though I cannot see them. When I envision things I know exist but cannot see, like planet Mars, I have imaginary lines. These are all different types of connections with different velocities. When I think of particles, I have imaginary lines of connections, even though they are infinitely small. When I observe these lines I am connected to everything. There is a change when I try to imagine antimatter, I observe a blockage and cannot create a connection.
As explained from my observation, these connecting lines emanating from my being are similar to a light source emitting light rays. It is as if I am a generator generating these different sources of energy and emitting them into the cosmic sea.
Is this similar to the quantum wave from an observation perspective? If I concentrate on one specific thing, these multi observational lines seem not to be present.

Just to make it practical for everyone to understand what I am saying, look at anything in your surroundings, if you can see it that’s a connection. Then think about someone you know or love that is not there with you, another connection, now think about the planet Saturn, another connection.

Can you at least understand why people are having trouble believing you? You are making extraordinary claims that fall completely outside the known laws of physics and are asking us to take your word for it. Additionally, there are MUCH more likely explanations for what you think is happening.


When you directly observe something through your senses, then sure, you are "connected" to it if you want to call it that, but whenever you think about particles, Mars, or anything not immediately being registered by your senses, then you are at most "connecting" to the concepts of those objects in your mind.

If you are seeing beams of light around visual objects in certain conditions, then there is some sort of effect happening that distorts what you see either in your eye mechanism itself or in your brain. If I squint and me eyes water a bit, I (and I am sure most other people) can see similar "beams" coming off of objects. When I close my eyes and apply some pressure to my eye ball, I see a blue dot that shifts as I move the pressure point around. Etc, etc, etc. There are many aberrations possible with a variety of different tests to be done, but none of them are due to some vague "connection" or anything outside of the laws of physics.

Why would you so readily construct such outrageous beliefs instead of considering more viable options?

MOD NOTE : Moved to "New Hypothesis".

Kalster, with all due respect, the world around us is full with all kind of possibilities, there is the all and there is the nothing. In my view I am doing what makes sense to me. The questions I ask are based on the way I understand myself, not the way you understand them. I am very happy when you try to understand what I am saying because I know that for a mind like yours you formulate structured question based on your knowledge of the matter.

My questions come directly from the connection to my surroundings, the universe, and myself. I see certain things the way they appear to me, I have no other way to ask them than the way I do. You say people have trouble with my questions or the way I pose them. I think people have problems with the way you answer their questions although I am sure you are very sincere, maybe they do not tell you and make you think they understand, I reject that.

Science for me is based on my questions; they reflect my view, not the way science dictates how I should pose them.
If I want to understand quantum physics I have to fit it into my being so I can make a visual picture for me to understand. I appreciate the fact that you and others are willing to accommodate me by giving me your understanding of my questions, however, I cannot just come up with something I do not understand.

Originally Posted by adelady

Just to make it practical for everyone to understand what I am saying, look at anything in your surroundings, if you can see it that’s a connection. Then think about someone you know or love that is not there with you, another connection, now think about the planet Saturn, another connection.

So. I have vision. I have emotions. I have intellect.

And?

There is really no and, I am merely trying to understand if these connecting lines are similar to the quantum wave theory I am trying to understand. I have a connection to the trees in my yard, when I look at them there is a connecting energy, when I look at all the trees I lose the connection to the single tree. I am making no claims to anything other than what I am observing.

Kalster, I am making no claim to anything but my observations. I am asking the question if it is understood, can this observation be equated with the quantum wave. If you do not understand the question I cannot expect you to answer. If I did not pose the question in a way for it to make sense to you and you are interested, I will try to do so.

I cannot understand why it is so difficult to see why I am asking these questions. I am simply trying to understand my relationship to these new discoveries that science thrust upon humans as me. Do you understand what I am saying? I am not trying to impress anyone or upset anyone. I ask Markus Hanke many questions because I do not understand when he says something’s at times.

Kalster, if you understand what I am asking, please tell me how I should pose the question for you and the other members not to think I make claims.
]

Originally Posted by Stargate

can this observation be equated with the quantum wave

No.
End of thread.

PS seek psychiatric help.

If I want to understand quantum physics I have to fit it into my being so I can make a visual picture for me to understand. I appreciate the fact that you and others are willing to accommodate me by giving me your understanding of my questions, however, I cannot just come up with something I do not understand.

If I wanted to understand quantum physics, I'd crack the textbooks and struggle through months of tedious work trying to get there. And probably fail.

I decided a long time ago that there are some things it's worth taking the experts word for and not worth the hard work and the brain pain of trying to do it for myself. There are not enough hours in the day or years in a lifetime to understand all the things that are currently beyond me.

The one thing that we do know is that the state of modern science is such that it is not possible for anyone, scientists included, to understand all there is to know. And there are some topics, quantum physics and statistics are the prime examples here, where the concepts and/or the conclusions are so counter-intuitive that they are really, really way beyond the "I'd like to understand this" approach.

Originally Posted by adelady

If I want to understand quantum physics I have to fit it into my being so I can make a visual picture for me to understand. I appreciate the fact that you and others are willing to accommodate me by giving me your understanding of my questions, however, I cannot just come up with something I do not understand.

If I wanted to understand quantum physics, I'd crack the textbooks and struggle through months of tedious work trying to get there. And probably fail.

I decided a long time ago that there are some things it's worth taking the experts word for and not worth the hard work and the brain pain of trying to do it for myself. There are not enough hours in the day or years in a lifetime to understand all the things that are currently beyond me.

The one thing that we do know is that the state of modern science is such that it is not possible for anyone, scientists included, to understand all there is to know. And there are some topics, quantum physics and statistics are the prime examples here, where the concepts and/or the conclusions are so counter-intuitive that they are really, really way beyond the "I'd like to understand this" approach.

Adelady, although I do understand your point of view, I do not see it that way. I have become a bit more skeptical as I have been taught a lot of crap by people who said they were learned, I only found out later. I have been lazy to ask questions and have swallowed until indigestion overtook my body. I want to know, and sometimes it’s difficult, but I want to know, although some hate when they are questioned. I have visited different places because I wanted to know for myself what I know is what I know. Have you noticed how people react when you question their authority? I am not saying they do not know, I just cannot tell when they know if I do not know.

I want to know, and sometimes it’s difficult, but I want to know, although some hate when they are questioned.

Sometimes it's difficult? With quantum physics, difficult is an inadequate way to describe the issue. If you're not already well-versed in physics - and also able to work through the relevant maths without assistance - then I don't see any way to "know" this stuff.

It is perfectly legitimate and sceptically "correct" to accept what the experts tell you about things you cannot work out for yourself. The essence of scepticism is to recognise the limits of your own knowledge and competence. Though it's a good sceptical idea to check that what you've picked up from one person or book or scientific paper accords with the generally accepted scientific view of the matter. You can become familiar with the topic as it's presented or described by people who do know their stuff, but knowing it or understanding it in the way that we non-physicists know times tables or ordinary calculus is a much bigger demand.

Pretending that all things, scientific or otherwise, are readily accessible to the understanding of anyone who asks is extremely unsceptical. Some things are by their very nature too difficult for understanding without extensive, intensive education, lots of quite hard work and willingness to maintain detailed attention to the subject. If you're genuinely interested, you have to do some work on the topic which can involve a fair bit of brain strain for say twenty to fifty hours of work on the basics. Then you have to decide whether you're willing to put in the real work to come to grips with the topic properly.

Unless you're willing to do the work yourself, take the results of other people's work with gratitude.

Stargate

I appreciate your sincerity and I am really encouraged that you are trying to figure things out. The main point I wanted to bring across though and what I wanted to find out from you, is how you decide the truth value of something. How do you separate real knowledge from mere claims to knowledge based on a variety of methods with questionable veracity and very importantly, how do you evaluate yourself in this regard.

One of the first things we have to know in our quest for knowledge is just how little we really do know. For me, I have a wide range of very superficial knowledge on a large variety of subjects, but I know very well that I do not even approach the level of knowledge that real practising scientists actually have. Adelady makes a great point here. We simply can't have any kind of in-depth knowledge of certain subjects without a great deal of dedicated study. We have to defer to those that have invested that time and energy on deeper principles.

The key thing we do have control over is what we choose as the best method for learning about our universe and then evaluating those who claim to have knowledge based on this criteria to help us determine the truth value of claims. When it comes to science, the scientific method has proven itself to be the best tool we can think of currently to go about acquiring scientific knowledge. It has various mechanisms built in specifically to help guard against our human tendencies to muddy the waters with various biases, wishful thinking, he illusion of knowledge, etc, as well as to work towards a more and more clear and verified picture of what is going on.

As I said, it is very important to apply these checks to yourself as well. We are all human and as such far too easily fill in the blanks with objectively questionable pieces of assumed knowledge. For me, I am committed to the disclaimer in my signature. I have spouted various inaccuracies on this forum over the years, but then I welcome correction and I evaluate those corrections based on the basic principles of the scientific method or more generally of critical thinking.

In this thread you have jumped the gun by assuming connections and vague explanations based on science terms you do not understand. That in itself is nothing to be ashamed of. You want to learn and that provides you the opportunity to go about that in the best way possible and that is not by trusting yourself to understand complicated concepts and misapplying them to questions you have.

Can I suggest you read through this: Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate your sincerity and I am really encouraged that you are trying to figure things out. The main point I wanted to bring across though and what I wanted to find out from you, is how you decide the truth value of something. How do you separate real knowledge from mere claims to knowledge based on a variety of methods with questionable veracity and very importantly, how do you evaluate yourself in this regard.

I too appreciate your sincerity and also that you took the time to respond to me.
You ask me how I know and decide the truth value of something, and how I evaluate myself in this regard. Just to keep it short. My parents were both devoted Christians; in my culture it is unquestionable to rebuttal your parents, I could not query or oppose, I obeyed. I ended up in hospital with nine operations and the doctors telling me they could not help me because they do not know what was wrong with me. I begged god to take my life and end my suffering, but for some reason he decided he was not going to listen to me until I came to my senses. Well, I did, and so I survived. The answer to your question is I should never take anything for granted even when it comes from your parents. So, I began to find out for myself. Mind you my parents were not to blame they wanted the best for me, however it was the worst. In my struggle to recover I realized I knew nothing that I thought I knew, all I knew was what I was told. Well, I decided that was not enough for me I wanted to know because the illness was so impressive that I did not want to experience such suffering again. I began to look at who I was and discovered that all I really knew could only be accounted for by what I knew from experience. The real knowledge of my truth was based on what I knew for myself, my truth was based on experience. I claim what I know for myself everything else is information. There are something’s I cannot tell you because you might not understand them.

I am a musician and I also studied electronics, most of all I am a traveller. Being a musician is quite interesting because it is based upon many fundamentals of science which actually came to me later on in my life; I guess that is what led me to electronics. Maybe now you can understand my interest in science.
Kalster, I base everything I do on myself because of my past experience. I must at least know something about what I do; if I do something I do not know I am aware that it is information and not knowledge.
My teacher liked me but he did not like my questions in class because if I did not know or understood, I would question him and sometimes I got on his nerves.

I will tell you this, I do not accept that there are stupid questions, but there are stupid answers. I have met so many people who say yes I understand but they really do not, but want to appear knowledgeable. In reality as you say there is so much to learn that when you look at what you know from experience it is infinitely small compared to the information one calls knowledge.

Originally Posted by adelady

I want to know, and sometimes it’s difficult, but I want to know, although some hate when they are questioned.

Sometimes it's difficult? With quantum physics, difficult is an inadequate way to describe the issue. If you're not already well-versed in physics - and also able to work through the relevant maths without assistance - then I don't see any way to "know" this stuff.

It is perfectly legitimate and sceptically "correct" to accept what the experts tell you about things you cannot work out for yourself. The essence of scepticism is to recognise the limits of your own knowledge and competence. Though it's a good sceptical idea to check that what you've picked up from one person or book or scientific paper accords with the generally accepted scientific view of the matter. You can become familiar with the topic as it's presented or described by people who do know their stuff, but knowing it or understanding it in the way that we non-physicists know times tables or ordinary calculus is a much bigger demand.

Pretending that all things, scientific or otherwise, are readily accessible to the understanding of anyone who asks is extremely unsceptical. Some things are by their very nature too difficult for understanding without extensive, intensive education, lots of quite hard work and willingness to maintain detailed attention to the subject. If you're genuinely interested, you have to do some work on the topic which can involve a fair bit of brain strain for say twenty to fifty hours of work on the basics. Then you have to decide whether you're willing to put in the real work to come to grips with the topic properly.

Unless you're willing to do the work yourself, take the results of other people's work with gratitude.

Again you are always so very realistic, I can hardly neglect your views on most topics. I cannot learn everything that is impossible. However I do differentiate knowledge form information. As you may have noticed I do read a lot but I am always apprehensive to quote anyone and that makes me a little odd on the forum because everyone wants proof. Experts don't make themselves; they are made by other people who think everything said is gospel. Humans are very egotistical and most time wants attention. The information on the net is vast but riddled with inaccurate information, how do you weed through all the debris and arrive at the truth. How do you arrive at your truths, and what is your knowledge base?

Experts don't make themselves; they are made by other people who think everything said is gospel. Humans are very egotistical and most time wants attention. The information on the net is vast but riddled with inaccurate information, how do you weed through all the debris and arrive at the truth. How do you arrive at your truths, and what is your knowledge base?

For me personally?

I look at what people claim is the best of the best in the way of publicly known scientists or experts in a particular area. Then I read their papers - at least the ones that interest me or I think I can follow without getting lost in the maths or the technicalities. Then I look at where they've been cited in later papers or discussed on various sites - preferably those run by scientists. Then I look at whether their earlier work has been verified or expanded or negated by later work - whether it's by their own work or by others is not really an issue as long as it's the same standard. Then I keep on the lookout for related material by them or on those topics.

The great advantage of this approach is that you gradually expand your circle of trusted experts. My two main areas of interest are education - particularly child development and remedial education, and climate science. There's a lot of hooey promoted about education and you have to have a keen nose for the wafting aromas of woo or wishful thinking or academic sloppiness or political manipulation. But once you find a couple of people worth reading, they tend to cite others who are also worth reading. So each time you read an article or see a presentation, you get 2 or 3 links to other experts worth your attention.

There's a lot of fuss and uproar about climate science but, unlike education, there's a pretty clear demarcation between scientific and sloppy/ political/ wishful thinking. So you can start with, say James Hansen and Michael Mann for two examples of well-known and brilliant, and you finish up with people like, say, Jason Box and Jerry Mitrovica and Mauri S Pelto and Grant Foster in your list of trusted experts for a variety of aspects of climate science. ( I also trust a couple of people I really can't read - Isaac Held being one. His stuff is ex.cell.ent. but way beyond the effort I'm willing to put in to understand it.)

The other things to do. Get yourself a comfy chair and an addiction to good quality documentaries. By the time you've watched all of Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Iain Stewart, Alice Roberts to start with, as well as a lifetime's worth of David Attenborough, and any other genuine expert in fields that interest you (if they do television) you'll be better off. You'll have given yourself not an education but a reliable canvas with clear outlines to follow in scientific topics.

Find a good general science magazine - not so easy nowadays - New Scientist has definitely declined in quality since the new publisher announced that it was entertainment by way of science and technology rather than a "dreary" and "boring" publication. Scientific American is OK as an alternative but I'm told it's not as good as it once was. Popular Mechanics is good so I hear - and they've banned anti-scientific stuff from their online publishing so that's good.

For keeping up to date with stuff online. I use Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology as a quick guide to what's new and may be worth a read. Usually the papers referred to are behind paywalls so you need lots and lots of blogs and sites bookmarked so you can track down someone who's had access to the paper and has also had the time to give a reliable overview or criticism of the work.

Adelady, I have definitely noticed that the links you give are better than most, I usually read them, based on what I know they are more reliable. I take a lot of information from ancient history and try to compare them to modern day history. The reason I use ancient history a lot is based on the long cycles of development they had. I have noticed that cut and paste is used excessively, sometimes in places you would never imagine, I also notice this on the science forum, I go to different sites and see the same things posted there.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I ask Markus Hanke many questions because I do not understand when he says something’s at times.

And I do my best to answer, however, that is only possible for me so long as the questions themselves are meaningful.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I am always apprehensive to quote anyone and that makes me a little odd on the forum because everyone wants proof.

I doubt very much anyone wants proof. They may ask for evidence or other support for what you say (e.g. a scientific report, some math or theory). But science doesn't deal in proof.

Experts don't make themselves; they are made by other people who think everything said is gospel.

There are two sorts of experts: those who "make themselves" by studying hard and working for years in a field. They will soften hedge their statements with caveats and cautions. As a result, they can usually be relied upon as reliable sources. But also for this reason, they don't appear in the mass media too often.

Then there are those proclaimed as experts by TV, newspapers and publications like the Daily Mail. These characters are chosen because they are "wacky", outspoken and show great confidence in their statements. Research has shown they are very often wrong. The mass media doesn't care about their accuracy though, just their saleability.

So one way to judge a source is...

Does it say things like:

(A) the evidence appears to suggest ... data is consistent with ... there is a possibility that ... it may be ... however ... further work is needed ...

(B) Chocolate causes cancer! We are all going to die!!!

Conclusion: A=reliable; B=unreliable (or worse).

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Stargate

I ask Markus Hanke many questions because I do not understand when he says something’s at times.

And I do my best to answer, however, that is only possible for me so long as the questions themselves are meaningful.

Markus, believe me, I do not bother you a lot but when I am stuck, I turn to you, why? Your effort to move things along, and as I notice I am not the only one.

B) Chocolate causes cancer! We are all going to die!!!

Hahaha, this makes me laugh, although I really agree with you.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Markus, believe me, I do not bother you a lot but when I am stuck, I turn to you, why? Your effort to move things along, and as I notice I am not the only one.

Ha ha, thank you...I try my best

When I first joined here it was all about "doing battle" with cranks and crackpots; coming out on top of discussions meant everything. However, now, two years later, I am finding that my priorities have shifted somewhat...I have been able to advance my own knowledge of physics through continuous self-study motivated by questions and discussions on this and other forums, and I realise now that the act of giving back to you all is much more important to me. In many ways it is easy to "dispatch" crackpots through sheer effort; but the greatest satisfaction comes not from winning arguments, but from teaching others and giving back some of the hard-earned knowledge to the community. There is nothing more satisfying for me than getting a genuine and simple "thank you" from someone for explaining some concept of physics or another; or sometimes being able to diffuse a heated discussion and get someone to acknowledge that "hey, perhaps mainstream science does have a point here...". All human knowledge combined is useless if we loose our ability to pass it on to other, less knowledge but curious peers. I think that is what an amateur science forum such as this one is all about, once all else is said and done. It took me some time to get to this realisation, but now I find that I no longer feel the need to confront everyone with differing opinions, and oftentimes I choose to simply not engage at all but merely point out factual errors or logical fallacies, and move along from there.

Anyway, I do thank you for the kind comment, I really appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Stargate

B) Chocolate causes cancer! We are all going to die!!!

Hahaha, this makes me laugh, although I really agree with you.

You may laugh but the first part is a direct quote from a "newspaper" (I can't bring myself to use that word for the rag in question).

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Stargate

Markus, believe me, I do not bother you a lot but when I am stuck, I turn to you, why? Your effort to move things along, and as I notice I am not the only one.

Ha ha, thank you...I try my best

When I first joined here it was all about "doing battle" with cranks and crackpots; coming out on top of discussions meant everything. However, now, two years later, I am finding that my priorities have shifted somewhat...I have been able to advance my own knowledge of physics through continuous self-study motivated by questions and discussions on this and other forums, and I realise now that the act of giving back to you all is much more important to me. In many ways it is easy to "dispatch" crackpots through sheer effort; but the greatest satisfaction comes not from winning arguments, but from teaching others and giving back some of the hard-earned knowledge to the community. There is nothing more satisfying for me than getting a genuine and simple "thank you" from someone for explaining some concept of physics or another; or sometimes being able to diffuse a heated discussion and get someone to acknowledge that "hey, perhaps mainstream science does have a point here...". All human knowledge combined is useless if we loose our ability to pass it on to other, less knowledge but curious peers. I think that is what an amateur science forum such as this one is all about, once all else is said and done. It took me some time to get to this realisation, but now I find that I no longer feel the need to confront everyone with differing opinions, and oftentimes I choose to simply not engage at all but merely point out factual errors or logical fallacies, and move along from there.

Anyway, I do thank you for the kind comment, I really appreciate it.

You are so very welcome, there has to be people on earth like you, or we are doomed.

Originally Posted by Stargate

there has to be people on earth like you, or we are doomed.

We'd be less "doomed" if there were fewer people like you.

To the question of how do you know what's good info and what's not: that's exactly why the scientific method was developed. The entire point is that things that can be measured repeatedly and accurately are real and theories that make accurate predictions are "true" with the caveat that most theories are only "true" within a certain domain of applicability.

Now, you could repeat the various experiments yourself (as many college and even high school students do, depending on the theory) or you can find a reputable journal that takes the time and effort to only publish stuff that has survived peer review, or even better, get some reputable text books that distill what has already been tested and retested into something digestible. Of course, the newer the text book the more likely it is to contain "truer" information.

Note the quotes around "true." Science is open to revision, but due to that testable and repeatable thing, it's highly unlikely that any new evidence will completely negate what we currently know. Even Newtonian mechanics is still useful within it's domain of applicability.