Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.

[Polymath257]

Hello ratioinator,
Please tell us why this is not evidence, in the double slit experiment, in the PBS Video 'Quantum Eraser', where electrons go back in time to change their course of travel, when scientists look, observe, measure, (what ever term you want to use) them.

Well, the most obvious answer is that they *don't* go back in time. That is a false reading of the results brought upon by trying to give a classical treatment of a quantum experiment.

The big problem is the expectation that electrons will only be in one location at each time. And that is a false assumption. The electrons in this experiment are in a superposition stage that goes over *both* paths and recombines at the end to either give an interference pattern or not.

A proper, quantum mechanical, treatment only has electrons going forward in time according to the probabilistic principles of quantum mechanics. It is only when you try to explain the situation using classical (and incorrect) views that you get such nonsense as causes going backward in time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello ratioinator,
Please tell us why this is not evidence, in the double slit experiment, in the PBS Video 'Quantum Eraser', where electrons go back in time to change their course of travel, when scientists look, observe, measure, (what ever term you want to use) them.

You need to learn what evidence is in the sciences:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

To have evidence you first must have scientific theory or hypothesis. How is your idea, not the double slit experiment, but your idea that an observer is needed testable? What reasonable test could refute it? If you can't answer that question you do not have evidence.

 

[Milton Platt]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

I wanted to revisit the OP, even though we are conversing on another thread already. Hope this does not confuse.
You said "No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man."
So you are proposing that the fossilized bones of dinosaurs and other animals came into existence at the same time as mankind?
And you are saying that all of the physical laws we have repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or experimentation did not exist before mankind, even though they would have been necessary to form not only the things evident in the universe, but mankind as well?

Quantum physics only applies at the smallest level

 

[ratiocinator]

Hello ratioinator,
Please tell us why this is not evidence, in the double slit experiment, in the PBS Video 'Quantum Eraser', where electrons go back in time to change their course of travel, when scientists look, observe, measure, (what ever term you want to use) them.

In addition to the other answers you've received on this, another problem is equating "measurement" or "observation" with "observed by a conscious mind" - and that is, at best, an interpretation of quantum mechanics - one of many (see: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia), most of which have nothing to do with consciousness and none of which currently have any supporting evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

In addition to the other answers you've received on this, another problem is equating "measurement" or "observation" with "observed by a conscious mind" - and that is, at best, an interpretation of quantum mechanics - one of many (see: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia), most of which have nothing to do with consciousness and none of which currently have any supporting evidence.

More precisely, since all the different interpretations give *exactly* the same predictions about observations, they are NOT different scientific hypotheses, but merely different philosophies about quantum mechanics.

 

[ecco]

When physicists do peek at electrons, electrons instantaneously go back in physical time and switch from wave form to physical particle form of travel, even into the physical time past of their travel.

How do you know that electrons do not "go back in physical time and switch from wave form to physical particle form of travel" even when no one is watching?

Electrons knowing when man is looking at them, and then going back in physical time to change their physical course of travel, is Intelligent Design by our Creator God.

What's intelligent about it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When physicists do peek at electrons, electrons instantaneously go back in physical time and switch from wave form to physical particle form of travel, even into the physical time past of their travel.​

Electrons knowing when man is looking at them, and then going back in physical time to change their physical course of travel, is Intelligent Design by our Creator God.

"...Dick Feynman told me about his ‘sum over histories’ version of quantum mechanics. ‘The electron does anything it likes’, he said. ‘It goes in any direction at any speed, forward and backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up the amplitudes and it gives you the wave-function.’ I said to him, ‘You’re crazy’. But he wasn’t." (emphasis added)
F. J. Dyson (1980). Comment on the topic "Beyond the black hole". In H. Woolf (Ed.) Some Strangeness in the Proportion: A Centennial Symposium to Celebrate the Achievements of Albert Einstein (p. 376). Addison-Wesley.

How do you know that electrons do not "go back in physical time and switch from wave form to physical particle form of travel" even when no one is watching?

We do know that if we assume the electron "travels" in this crazy way that makes no sense then we get the right answers to the appropriate questions in physics, not to mention a coherent scheme for quantum mechanics that becomes almost required in quantum field theory together with some nice diagrams that were once semi-disparaged by Schwinger as "bringing computation to the masses".
Not sure how this is formulation of electron trajectories is supposed to be evidence for intelligent design (I am sure the man who created it would have vehemently disagreed, as would most who use the framework), but I'm sure I will be told.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

Hi Steven, thank you for the OP.

I was very sorry indeed to read over in the DIR forum where you posted a similar thread that while you loved Stephen Hawking’s documentary series, you also feel religion has been attacked by him and perhaps some other atheist physicists. As an atheist who also loves physics, I think it’s a shame whatever Hawking said made you feel that way.

I can’t post in that DIR forum but wanted to tell you that.

Regarding the OP: someone may have pointed this out already but most physicists do not interpret quantum mechanics to imply that particles snap into place only when measured by a conscious observer.

 

[Straw Dog]

We may see the universe, but we do not fully observe it... and yet it is still there all along waiting to be discovered.

 

[rational experiences]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

If a living human male was not standing on a stone planet inside of a variation to stone as a gas atmosphere, to claim evolution and also God.

Simply because a male in science quotes, meaning a male living thinking, self present said God was the stone.

If Einstein who died, made a claim, then we are all personal witnesses to what Einstein claimed...yes the moon still exists as a moon without his life being lived and without his thoughts making male human statements.

Male egotism has a lot to answer for, in the themes that he thinks about which is not relative in any thinking condition to his own natural life and its survival.