Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg

Episode 80;
James J. Traitz was invited to speak at the 2009 Hurtak Easter Seminars in Memphis, TN. This is the 9th video of his talk:
mind is the matrix of all matter-it is only real when seen

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• james
• traitz
• max
• planck
• werner
• heisenberg
• mind
• matrix
• matter
• real

[TheEnthe0s]

@TheEnthe0s and would thus be*

[TheEnthe0s]

@goethethegreat Of course it does, it changes it by allowing it to exist. If it wasn't observed, it would not be and is thus infinte potentiality.

[goethethegreat]

@GRIJZEKAK Observation does seem to have a reliably detectable effect on the quantum level.

[GRIJZEKAK]

@goethethegreat : OK. but you admit then that it does change the reality in the quantum world?

[goethethegreat]

@GRIJZEKAK He is inaccurately applying concepts from one system to another. There is no evidence that observation alone changes reality in the 'macro" newtonian universe.

[firebyrd1991]

Cont: On a final note, for the benefit of the less enlightened commenters; this has not been a discussion of the uncertainty principle, nor did it enter into the video at any point, it is instead about the principle of superposition, a different phenomena resulting from QM.

If I am honest, I do not understand the point that your video intends to make, but it is clear that your reasoning to justify whatever this point may be is highly flawed.

[firebyrd1991]

Cont: You also misunderstand the superposition in your example of the tree in the forest; were the tree in a superposition of states (whether or not the tree can hold a quantum superposition ifs a different matter), it would be in ALL possible states until observed, i.e. fallen, not fallen, and all stages of falling. I am interested to hear the statement of Bell's Theorem that you are using without quoting it to throw around the idea of macroscopic quantum states, it is dissimilar to mine.

[firebyrd1991]

Cont: So in fact, you have directly disputed Penrose's status as a 'true' scientist. Perhaps you should look into the concept of observation in QM, maybe you will understand Heisenberg's statement better. You should also note that the wavefunction is not a physical object, it is a mathematical description of the distribution of probability amplitudes for the system. A more physical way to consider it is in terms of state ('ket') vectors, though again this is still a mathematical representation.

[firebyrd1991]

Cont: Now, most traditional treatments of QM assert that any physical quantity that one can measure must correspond to a real number (see my previous comment), rather than a complex number (some physicists disagree with this, notably Sir Roger Penrose). This is what Heisenberg meant by quantities being real, it was not a discussion as to whether they were fictitious or not, merely that they have no meaning before measurement in our conventional, classical viewpoint of physics.

[firebyrd1991]

Cont: In any case, you're misinterpreting Heisenberg's statement (and the meaning of 'real' in QM). In mathematics, there are constructs called imaginary numbers, multiples of i, where i is defined by i=abs(sqrt(-1)) (though taking the negative of this definition will yield equivalent results). The real numbers are those that you likely consider to be all numbers, e.g. 1, 2, 3, -1, 0.5, pi, etc. We can add a combination of real and imaginary numbers, for example 3+5i to make a complex number.