Quantum Physics Is Common Sense
Project: Polytopia
Logically it makes sense why they act like particles when observed and waves when not observed. Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips and how those statistics are affected by observing the coins. I will explain why the double-slit experiment is the same experiment as something you can do with 2 coins.

In the double-slit experiment, an electron (or other particle/wave) has 2 holes it can go through and then is detected hitting somewhere on the back wall. If it goes through the left hole, statistically it will paint a pattern on the back wall. If it goes through the right hole, it paints a different pattern. It goes through each hole equally often as the other. Most peoples' common sense tells them that statistically it doesnt matter if you know which hole it went through because you can simply average the 2 patterns to get the pattern on the back wall for when it could go through either hole. But its a very different pattern from the average of the left-hole-pattern and right-hole-pattern. Its the same pattern as waves interfering with each other.

Sometimes electrons act like particles and sometimes like waves, but why? I'm going to explain why that happens using common sense instead of equations. The problem is most people don't have all the parts of common sense that they think they have. If you understand the following about 2 coin flips, and you see the patterns created in the double-slit experiments, then you can put them together and understand why electrons (and other particles/waves) sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. Logically, without considering the specific equations of physics, we can know there has to be something like that in physics somewhere. Here's the 2 coin question:

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads?

Its 1/3, not 1/4 or 1/2 like most people think, because there are 4 ways 2 coins can land and I only excluded "both tails" when I said "at least 1 coin landed heads" so that leaves 3 possibilities and I asked what is the chance of 1 of those 3 things which happen equally often. Its 1/3. If you still don't believe it, flip 2 coins many times and only ask the question when at least 1 of them lands heads and you will see that 1/3 of the time you ask the question they both land heads. The flaw in Human minds is the need to choose 1 of the coins and say it certainly landed heads, but I did not tell you any specific coin landed heads, and it does change the answer if you take that shortcut.

Most peoples' common sense tells them that since its a symmetric question (between the 2 coins), it can't matter if they start with 1 of the 1-or-2 coins that landed heads, and they think it will get the same answer as not knowing if a specific coin is heads or not. How could it matter? We know at least 1 of the 2 coins landed heads, so I'll just define a variable called coinX=heads and figure out if coinY=heads or coinY=tails. Since coinY was randomly flipped and coins have a 1/2 chance of heads, then the chance both are heads must be 1/2. But then they think about the extra information I told them: at least 1 coin landed heads. That has to change something, so how could coinY be 1/2 chance of heads by itself and with coinX? CoinX and coinY are symmetric. You can trade them in this question and not change the answer. So whatever is true of coinY has to also be true of coinX on average. So maybe the chance both are heads is 1/4. Most people go back and forth between 1/2 and 1/4, but the answer is 1/3 as I explained above.

How is the 2-coin experiment related to the double-slit experiment?

The patterns of the 2 coins (how often they land heads) individually can not always be averaged to get the pattern of both coins together. If at least 1 coin landed heads and you observe a specific coin being heads, then the chance they are both heads is 1/2. If at least 1 coin landed heads but you don't observe any coin, then the chance both are heads is 1/3.

Logically, observing a specific case of something you know has to be true in general, about the 2 coins, produces a different outcome than only knowing its true in general.

The analogy to quantum physics is that when you observe a heads or tails, you collapse the wavefunction (including the other coin you didn't observe) to a particle and the other becomes a different wavefunction, but if you do not observe any heads or tails then its a symmetric wavefunction between the 2 coins.

I can say the same thing about the 2 holes in the double-slit experiment. If I put an electron detector past the left hole, and shoot an electron that could go through either hole, and the detector observes or does not observe an electron, then I get a different pattern (statistically on the back wall of where the electrons hit) than if the detector was not observing the space between the left hole and the back wall. If any part of the possible paths are observed (as containing or not containing an electron), then the other possible paths are affected even though they were not observed. The electron could have gone through both slits or neither or left or right, but still the path on the right is affected by observing the path on the left.

Most quantum physics scientists explain it as the electron going through the left hole, the right hole, both holes simultaneously, or bouncing off the thing containing the 2 holes without going through either hole. If the electron does not go through either hole, they do not count that in any of the patterns on the back wall.

In the 2-coin experiment and double-slit experiment, there are 4 possibilities, and 1 is excluded. I need to label the 2 coins for this, like the left and right holes/slits are labeled "left" and "right". One coin is a nickel and the other is a dime. This is not the only way to pair the 4 possibilities. Its just a way to explain that they are the same problem:

(1) Nickel heads. Dime tails. Electron left slit. Electron not right slit.

(2) Nickel tails. Dime heads. Electron not left slit. Electron right slit.

(3) Both coins heads. Electron goes through both slits.

(4) Both coins tails. Electron bounces off the thing containing the slits and does not go through either. It is not true that "at least 1 coin landed heads" so I don't ask the question or keep statistics of it. The electron didn't hit the back wall so its not part of the statistical patterns.

In the design of both experiments (2-coin and double-slit), cases (3) and (4) are opposites and cases (1) and (2) are symmetric. Exactly 1 of (3) and (4) is not counted in the statistics, but the chance is equally balanced between (1) and (2). It works the same way if you swap the left and right slits or swap the nickel and dime or swap heads and tails or swap going through a slit with not going through a slit. Its practical to test it going through the slit but not practical to test it after it bounces because bouncing is an observation by the thing it bounced on.

Quantum physics is a kind of statistics. So is the 2-coin experiment. In the double-slit experiment and the 2-coin experiment, observing any part changes the outcome statistically. I'm not saying the math of the double-slit experiment is exactly the math of a bayesian-network (which is the kind of statistics used for the 2-coin experiment), but I explained enough similarities that quantum physics scientists should take this seriously.

The double-slit experiment is a variation of the 2-coin experiment that uses continuous angles instead of only heads/tails.

That is why observing things changes the outcome and why electrons/photons/etc act like particles when observed and act like waves when not observed.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 coin landed heads, then whats the chance both landed heads? The most important thing to remember is the question is symmetric between the 2 coins, and you can know that 1 of the 2 coins will be heads, but observing either of those coins as heads changes the outcome, like observing what goes through either slit changes the outcome.

Quantum physics is common sense to anyone who understands the statistics of 2 coin flips.

There is something which is true about the coins, and there are 2 ways which it could be true, and each of those 2 ways is symmetric, but knowing which of those 2 ways it is changes the outcome.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  selects a coin and says its heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/3, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice  was used on 2 things which were identical and you have no way to tell them apart.

If I flipped 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, and the first coin that landed (or the coin that landed closest to my foot, or whatever) is heads, then whats the chance both are heads? 1/2, because a specific coin is heads and the other is independent.

Your observation of something which you already know to be true (but not which of 2 symmetric ways for it to be true) changes the chances, and that is exactly what we see in the double-slit experiment.

Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
Categories: Experiment, statistics, quantum, double slit, common sense, particle, wave
Sent to project: Polytopia

gamma     Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
Electrons leave point-like marks on the screen. When they interfere or self-interfere, they create furrows similar to interferential lines made of dots. I am waiting for the explanation and soon I'll strangle someone to give me one.
BenRayfield     Sat, Feb 26, 2011  Permanent link
gamma, the electron as waves creates furrows (place where its lower, or darker in this case) because a wave oscillates between negative and positive, so shining an extra light on it can make the first light darker in some places. Normally we think lights always make things brighter because its many photons at once randomly and we don't look close enough to see it getting darker in some small places and brighter in others.
Autotelic     Mon, Feb 28, 2011  Permanent link
real world quantum physics can be found with the tree falling in the woods riddle... if no one is around when the tree falls its only going to "vibrate the airwaves", but if someone is around when the tree falls they will hear a "sound" thus the observation of the event changed the result of the event.

the way i understand quantum physics is basically that reality changes simply by observing it
gamma     Tue, Mar 1, 2011  Permanent link
Quantum Entanglements: Part 1 (Fall 2006) by Stanford University
alok subbarao     Tue, Mar 1, 2011  Permanent link
@Gamma for your first question, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do), it's simply the phenomenon of diffraction patterns, which BenRayfield explained right below. It's simply differing areas of constructive and destructive interference.
BenRayfield     Thu, Sep 29, 2011  Permanent link
Progress update... This time I have a testable prediction, a way to use lasers, optical sensors, and crystals and commitments to do certain things with that in the future based on future events to entangle the future with the present, which should result in generating unbalanced gravity, also called telekinesis, but done by machines.

Galaxies accelerate for same reason evolving species diverge and cant interbreed.

This is my extension to Ultimate Ensemble Multiverse Theory. I'll write the basics now, details of how to use it to build a gravity engine soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble

I define "unity" as... Below the level of physics is the total of all possibilities, symmetric in all ways, averaging to nothing, containing no information on average, simultaneously nothing and everything (since those 2 things are isomorphic except for the labels of "something" vs "nothing", and labels do not change content). The Ultimate Ensemble theory (also called Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) can be rewritten as "Universe equals unity."

In the double-slit experiments, observing the particle/wave after it passes through the slit(s) causes it to have a different past, which often causes it to have gone through both slits (if not observed in the future) or only 1 slit (if observed in the future). That is a fact of statistical physics.

It is also a fact that string theory (the unified version made from all the other theories that turned out to be different ways to say the same thing) is a statistical equation that can be used to calculate wave interference between particles/waves. While they're only a linear approximation and could be made more accurate with higher math, Bayesian Networks are a statistics data-structure and algorithms that apply to such data-structures that, if done continuously instead of on discrete variables, looks very much like quantum physics equations. Any differences can be solved by using the general ability of bayesian networks to do basic logic operations (equal, xor, and, or, not, etc) to implement any arbitrary wave interference equations. A bayesian network is the statistical version of a general computer. I'm not saying bayesian networks are exactly the right solution, but in general they're much closer than the "standard model" of physics which has exceptions layered on top of exceptions, multiple forces, unobserved particles like higgs boson and graviton, and other inconsistencies. Regardless of what physical constants there are (like the mass of a certain boson type), a bayesian network could be created that describes such curved statistics. All possible wave interference based physics equations can be described using some kind of bayesian network (like one done in higher math using layers of vectors (tensor fields) instead of discrete variables).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem
Its simply this: chance(x, given y) * chance(y) = chance(y, given x) * chance(x).

That's all. It can easily be demonstrated that people don't understand it by this question: If I flip 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, whats the chance both landed heads? Theres 4 ways for it to land, I excluded "tails tails" and asked whats the chance of 1 of 3 remaining possibilities, so its 1/3 chance that both are heads. Most people say 1/2 or 1/4 because Human minds have a severe flaw in tending to choose 1 coin to say is heads and ignore, but theres 2 coins it could be and you would be collapsing 2 possibilities to 1.

We know that time is reversible. Time isn't really part of physics. Its just a statistical pattern, as Boltzmann proved.

They say time is defined by the Schrodinger Equation, but like Newton's idea of linear time, the Schrodinger Equation is just another linear approximation that can be changed by using the bayesian equation (see the link above for the general bayesian equation that needs to be generalized for curved probability space using vectors instead of discrete variables). Instead of the Schrodinger Equation, simply transition from the current state of the universe (also known as consciousness) in all directions simultaneously, so you take all paths from here and now. Since all paths are taken, momentum and other things are conserved, still averaging to unity.

But if you take all paths, wouldn't the universe just become randomized quickly and all the atoms in our bodies fly apart? No, because DNA is an unusual kind of molecule that tends to grow life even when atoms vibrate in random-appearing ways. For example, heat is random-appearing movements of atoms, but DNA grows life anyways. This is called extropy, the opposite of entropy. Since the universe is unity, the total extropy (which is negative entropy) must balance and sum to 0. Conservation of entropy, overall for the universe. The second law of thermodynamics is therefore wrong, unless you define here and now as a "heat death" state of the universe, since we're stable.

What does all that have to do with galaxies accelerating (not just moving) away from eachother? Wouldn't gravity pull them toward eachother so they have negative acceleration? It would if gravity was a force of physics. Its not. Its a statistical pattern equal to the entanglement/dependence of variables/particles in a bayesian network. The universe can be viewed as a continuous bayesian network, plus the set of all things that aren't continuous, but since any system can be emulated and called recursively in a continuous rotated or other kind of way, the set of all possibilities (unity, ultimate ensemble, mathematical universe theory) is continuous and full
connected. Every "here and now" (every moment of consciousness, every experience) is a local observation of unity from an unbalanced place of observation, but together they all cancel out, so the universe doesn't exist on average, only existing when separated from itself, and here we are.

Galaxies accelerate apart because of self-replicating processes that diverge the bayesian-statistics of each galaxy away from others. Things become less similar to eachother. The statistics lose dependence, lose entanglement, have no statistical relationship to eachother, are independent variables.

A black hole is the opposite. The variables/particles have very similar bayesian statistics, which is why they're pulled together, because when 1 is true the others near it are true, and I don't mean to say that a particle has a true/false value, but instead that there is an infinite unity of vector directions that can be substituted for the idea of true/false as bayesian networks are normally understood.

Time slows down as speed approaches speed of light because the wavefunction gets more collapsed, being more similar to a black hole which is more predictable than a gas or liquid for example.

As in the double-slit experiments, all paths are taken, and even when the particle is observed, its still taking all paths but we only see the path we take, and we're always a local observation somewhere, a derivative, one point of consciousness in an infinite unity of possibilities, so that's why observing the particle collapses the wavefunction and you see the sum of 2 bell curves on the back wall instead of a wave interference pattern, and its why it still works if you collapse it in the future to change its path in the past... There's no such thing as time. There is only a bayesian network which takes all immediately adjacent paths simultaneously. Its just that the world around the double slit experiment continues taking random paths which average to a standard deviation of random movement, while the particle in the experiment, as its meant to be set up, is not statistically dependent on any of that, so while we take any of exponentially many paths, the particle is not entangled with our reality until we observe it, and then it appears to collapse, but as it collapses, ourselves superposition and see it collapse in all other possible ways too, because we are everywhere and everything at once... we just don't have information flowing between us separate life forms so we act like individuals, but the consciousness is unity. Theres no difference between consciousness and mass and energy and space, and time doesn't exist at all, and I'm not sure if mass is real either, but that's just details. Its all 1 kind of thing, as Ultimate Ensemble Multiverse Theory says. Its all possibilities you can write in math. That's why the double slit experiment works, and why the following gravity engine will work:

Gravity is statistical clustering, not a force of physics, or maybe I should say its at a different level of physics than the other "laws of physics", since they're all just data in a bayesian network or other way to represent general statistics and patterns.

Since theres no such thing as time, if you can cause a crystal to have statistically significant vibrations to the vibrations in some other crystal in some other place and time (or the same crystal), then the statistics will automatically entangle those crystals in those patterns. How would it get entangled? Gravity works in more than the few dimensions physics knows about now. Unity is infinite dimensions, and gravity works in all of them, a general pattern system pulling similar many-dimensional shapes together, not an intelligent process, just statistical clustering to balance the statistical pattern called entropy, since it all has to sum to 0 entropy and 0 of everything else, unity.

If you connect a statistical software to lasers pointing at a crystal and connect optical sensors to that crystal (many directions of input and output, used by the software), and use grids of these crystals, maybe forming a grid around a planet or a galaxy, then by committing to adjust the patterns in the crystal based on things observed in the future, and by trying to move the crystals vibrations toward or away from such a state in the present, the things the crystal is commited (by your plan encoded in the software) to do will be an effect instead of just a cause. For example, if you commit to put certain patterns of vibration (a feedback loop between the lasers and optical sensors) into the crystal as a continuous function of the gravity waves of a black hole, and you do the same for crystals in a grid around such black hole, then proportional to EXPONENTIAL OF some function of the accuracy of your crystal prediction system, the gravity waves of the black hole would be changed. This is an exponentially powerful gravity engine for the cost of linear input energy, but at the high startup cost of getting the accuracy high enough to do anything at all, since it has to do wave interference and search through an exponential number of multiverse variations (parallel universes, but not separate, not really universes) to form the statistical entanglement between the crystals and the thing they surround.

Another way to use such crystals would be in circles and with statistical patterns committed to in advance (to handle the time part) to align to a certain circular grid of other crystals at a certain time, depending on certain conditions. The same way the black hole gravity waves can be changed exponentially with linear input energy, such circular grids of crystal systems can be used to generate wormholes between them, known in science fiction as stargates.

Seriously, it should work, but we don't have nearly enough accuracy in our technology to make it work at that level yet, and we should start small with just expecting a small force of unbalanced gravity where none would be expected.

I'm not making this up. I have good reasons for every part of this theory, and as a telekinetic (moving small things with the mind) at rare times, I am one of the few people who can understand how the unviverse works from that perspective, combined with my advanced math skills to do something useful with it. This theory explains how telekinesis and telepathy work. Brains evolved to do what I said to use the crystals for, but with electricity and neural firing patterns instead of lasers and optical sensors. Brains are quantum and multiverse devices. We all have an infinite number of neurons, and I'm learning how to use them that way sometimes.

Or maybe we've been contacted by superintelligent aliens and the only language we have in common is math and statistical interactions through the multiverse in the bayesian way I described here. If I'm right then "the singularity" has happened, is happening, because it will happen, since time doesn't exist and is only an illusion caused by gravity toward our current "here and now" patterns that we call reality. That would explain a lot of things, since I really don't think I'm smart enough to figure out how to build a stargate or a gravity engine on my own. But now it makes sense to me how it would work. Please, find somebody to research the possibility and build it for all to use.

More details later...