6 ms·

>>In 1984, Alley—along with Oleg Jakubowicz and William Wickes, both of whom had also been in the audience that day—finally got the experiment to run. It worked

>>In 1984, Alley—along with Oleg Jakubowicz and William Wickes, both of whom had also been in the audience that day—finally got the experiment to run. It worked just as Wheeler had imagined: measurements made in the present can create the past. I'm not a physicist so unfortunately I don't know whether this is true. However, of all the documentaries on Physics that I've seen they have never mentioned this. Could anybody please chime in whether this is true.

Ono-Sendai 12y ago
I can't tell you if it's true or not, but you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experi...
- ctchocula 12y ago
  Here's a Wheeler quote from the link: 'Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived."' Could this be used as an argument that we are inside the simulation of the universe? I mean if I were to design a game, I might leave the state undefined until it's necessary for it to be known (by some consciousness perhaps).
  - Ono-Sendai 12y ago
    The state is not really 'undefined'. Rather there is a well defined wavefunction (that is governed by precise evolution rules) that 'collapses' to a single point when a position measurement is taken. That's the Copenhagen interpretation at least :)
    - ctchocula 12y ago
      Yet there is something "undefined" about the phenomenon we're seeing. In the context of the quote, what is undefined is whether the the quantum phenomena is a wave or a particle. I found a name for the concept I was describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
tjradcliffe 12y ago
It is very much a matter of interpretation. The notion that "measurements made in the present can create the past" is not generally accepted by physicists. Furthermore, any idea that is put forward in terms of "X (a well-known concept) does not really exist" is almost certainly gibberish masquerading as hype. Of course time exists. If time is "really" an illusion it is still a perfectly real phenomena that is created by perfectly real causes and which results in perfectly real responses in knowing subjects who then mis-interpret their cause. Illusions are real. When we see impute a bend in a stick that passes through the water's surface we make a mistake, but the bend is perfectly real: it is just that the bend is in the light that passes between the stick and our eye, not in the stick itself. Anyone who says the bend is not real has to explain how is it that we see it. We cannot see what is not real, although we may on very rare occasions misinterpret what we are seeing (we know the occasions are very rare because if they weren't we would have no ordinary, non-illusitory experiences to contrast illusions with.)

Ono-Sendai 12y ago

I can't tell you if it's true or not, but you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experi...

ctchocula 12y ago
Here's a Wheeler quote from the link: 'Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived."' Could this be used as an argument that we are inside the simulation of the universe? I mean if I were to design a game, I might leave the state undefined until it's necessary for it to be known (by some consciousness perhaps).
- Ono-Sendai 12y ago
  The state is not really 'undefined'. Rather there is a well defined wavefunction (that is governed by precise evolution rules) that 'collapses' to a single point when a position measurement is taken. That's the Copenhagen interpretation at least :)
  - ctchocula 12y ago
    Yet there is something "undefined" about the phenomenon we're seeing. In the context of the quote, what is undefined is whether the the quantum phenomena is a wave or a particle. I found a name for the concept I was describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

tjradcliffe 12y ago

It is very much a matter of interpretation. The notion that "measurements made in the present can create the past" is not generally accepted by physicists. Furthermore, any idea that is put forward in terms of "X (a well-known concept) does not really exist" is almost certainly gibberish masquerading as hype. Of course time exists. If time is "really" an illusion it is still a perfectly real phenomena that is created by perfectly real causes and which results in perfectly real responses in knowing subjects who then mis-interpret their cause. Illusions are real. When we see impute a bend in a stick that passes through the water's surface we make a mistake, but the bend is perfectly real: it is just that the bend is in the light that passes between the stick and our eye, not in the stick itself. Anyone who says the bend is not real has to explain how is it that we see it. We cannot see what is not real, although we may on very rare occasions misinterpret what we are seeing (we know the occasions are very rare because if they weren't we would have no ordinary, non-illusitory experiences to contrast illusions with.)