Effect Becomes The Cause

[Guest guest]

Here is a real experiment where an action committed in the present

affects what occurs in the past.

 

You may have to read this a couple times before it's grasped, but if you can,

it's

worth the trouble.

 

This experiment uses:

1. a light source

2. a screen with 2 slits in it.

3. light sensitive film set up behind the screen

4. 2 telescopes set up behind the film

 

}

light beam=====> I I

screen w/ 2 slits film }

2

telescopes

 

The film is hinged at the bottom so it can instantly be switched up from a

horizontal

position so the film will capture the photon. If the film is left down (in the

horizontal

position)the photon to travel toward the telescopes.

 

The distance between the 2 slitted screen and the film is long enough to allow

the

physicist plenty of time to decide whether to leave the film down or put it up

after the photon has already passed through the 2 slitted screen and before it

hits the telescopes.

 

The key here is that the physicist must choose to either leave the film down or

decide to put it up *after* the photon has passed through the 2 slitted screen.

 

Each telescope is perfectly aligned to one of the slits in the 2 slitted screen.

If the film is left down then, the photon travels all the way to one of the

telescopes.

 

(to hit telescope #1 the photon must pass through slit #1, for the photon

to hit telescope #2, the photon must pass through slit #2)

 

Now according to Wheeler's quandary, if the physicist puts the film up,

the single photon must pass through *both* slits simultaneously

in order to make an interference pattern on the film.

 

In other words, when the film is up it determines the wavelike property

of the photon.

 

When the film is left down the photon reaches only one telescope or the other.

 

Screen up - photon acts like a wave passing though both slits at the same time.

Screen down - photon acts like a particle passing through one slit or the other.

 

Since it's well after the photon has passed through the slits that the film

is put up or left down, the physicist chooses the legitimate past for the photon

(one path or both paths)

 

The effect has become the cause.

[Guest guest]

> David Bozzi <david.bozzi

>

> Here is a real experiment where an action committed in the present

> affects what occurs in the past.

 

 

There a variation on this experiment:

 

 

]

 

| ]

light beam=====> | ]

 

| ]

screen w/ 2

]

 

CCD array

 

In a CCD, electrons can move almost freely and hit by a photon, a current

will flow. So what is expected is that the photons are acting like

particles. This CCD array is a special type; individual cells can be read

out, so the array can behave like the two telescopes or like a sensitive

film. Now the question: What will the CCD register? An interference pattern

or two stripes from the slits?

 

[...]

>

> The key here is that the physicist must choose to either leave

> the film down or

> decide to put it up *after* the photon has passed through the 2

> slitted screen.

 

But how could he detect the passage of a photon without assuming it is a

particle or a wave first ?

>

> Each telescope is perfectly aligned to one of the slits in the 2

> slitted screen.

> If the film is left down then, the photon travels all the way to

> one of the telescopes.

>

> (to hit telescope #1 the photon must pass through slit #1, for the photon

> to hit telescope #2, the photon must pass through slit #2)

>

> Now according to Wheeler's quandary, if the physicist puts the film up,

> the single photon must pass through *both* slits simultaneously

> in order to make an interference pattern on the film.

 

Instead of using photons, let's take electrons, they can act as waves too.

With the added advantage of the electrical charge. So what happens with that

when the electron passes through both slits simultaneously?

> In other words, when the film is up it determines the wavelike property

> of the photon.

>

> When the film is left down the photon reaches only one telescope

> or the other.

>

> Screen up - photon acts like a wave passing though both slits at

> the same time.

> Screen down - photon acts like a particle passing through one

> slit or the other.

>

> Since it's well after the photon has passed through the slits

> that the film

> is put up or left down, the physicist chooses the legitimate past

> for the photon

> (one path or both paths)

>

> The effect has become the cause.

 

But that is the wrong assumption - there is no way acknowledgeing whether

or not a single photon has passed through the slits without influencing it.

Only prediction is possible, based on generating photons and the speed of

light. This however, debunks that the past can be determined.

[Guest guest]

The complexity and precision of nonliving things (such as photons, light,

and other things the wise people in this group have been talking about of

late) as well that of living organisms should at least open up the

possibility of the existence of a higher power that is guiding everything in

the universe. We can call that "force" God or whatever else we choose.

 

Nav

[Guest guest]

> In a CCD, electrons can move almost freely and hit by a photon, a current will

flow. So

what is expected is that

> the photons are acting like particles. This CCD array is a special type;

individual cells

can be read out, so the > array can behave like the two telescopes or like a

sensitive

film. Now the question: What will the CCD register?

> An interference pattern or two stripes from the slits?

 

Try asking Fred Alan Wolf.

> The key here is that the physicist must choose to either leave

> the film down or

> decide to put it up *after* the photon has passed through the 2

> slitted screen.

> But how could he detect the passage of a photon without assuming it is a

particle or a

wave first ?

 

Well she doesn't have to. All she has to know is the speed of light and

when the photon is sent.

> Since it's well after the photon has passed through the slits

> that the film

> is put up or left down, the physicist chooses the legitimate past

> for the photon

> (one path or both paths)

>

> The effect has become the cause.

> But that is the wrong assumption - there is no way acknowledgeing whether or

not a single

photon has passed > through the slits without influencing it. Only prediction is

possible,

based on generating photons and the

> speed of light. This however, debunks that the past can be determined.

 

Well no, because the physicist's choice in the present moment is the cause

which

determines the effect (the path already taken by the photon in the past).

 

I've supplied this link before and some newcomers would surely be interested

so I'll supply it again.

--\

------------

 

Description: Real Audio Interview~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

One of the most compelling questions of all time is, do we

have a

soul? And if we do, what exactly is it? Fred Alan Wolf,

well-known resident physicist on Discovery Channel's

"No-Zone"

program, gives us an answer and a unique definition. He

also

discusses spirit, space, time, consciousness and the

possible origins

of the universe. From a physicist who knows scientifically

what a

miracle our universe really is, we hear reasons to

celebrate our

very existence, and he reminds us that "we, who are living

in this

incredible miracle we call the universe, have to begin to

recognize

that we are not just in it, we are it." Wolf is a writer,

lecturer and

 

consulting physicist, as well as the author of The

Dreaming

Universe (Simon & Schuster 1994) and The Spiritual

Universe:

How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of the Soul

(Simon & Schuster 1996). To locate or purchase books (new

and

used) by Fred Alan Wolf, please Wolf Books

Highlights

The difference between soul, spirit and self

The possibilities of good and evil in the soul

Wolf's thoughts on reincarnation and resurrection

Defining the soul as a verb, not a noun

Time, the ultimate mystery

The possible consciousness of inanimate objects

Zero-point energy

How the universe began, and how it may end

 

http://www.newdimensions.org/dimensions/f-2677.ram

Fred's e-mail address is supplied at the end of this fabulous interview.

 

Enjoy, and don't scratch yer head too hard,

David

[Guest guest]

INSprofess wrote:

> The complexity and precision of nonliving things (such as photons, light,

> and other things the wise people in this group have been talking about of

> late) as well that of living organisms should at least open up the

> possibility of the existence of a higher power that is guiding everything in

> the universe. We can call that "force" God or whatever else we choose.

 

I dare say we'd all agree with that.

 

Speaking for myself regarding the existence of nonliving things,

I don't believe there is such a thing.

(Everything is alive)

 

David

[Guest guest]

<<

INSprofess

 

The complexity and precision of nonliving things (such as photons, light,

and other things the wise people in this group have been talking about of

late) as well that of living organisms should at least open up the

possibility of the existence of a higher power that is guiding everything in

the universe. We can call that "force" God or whatever else we choose.

 

Nav

>>

---

 

I like the title Self, because it reflects the fact that this force is not

apart from us. It is us.

 

xan