infinitely immeasurable
Without measurements particles cannot adhere to a particular state and the very method of measurement usually defines how the particle interacts, thus naming the particle. This can also be likened to energy. For example, LOVE. Love is something that cannot be measured necessarily, but we begin to have ideas about what love means for each one of us. We say to ourselves, "I love when that happens." Or "I feel loved when this occurs." More often than not we associate love with gifts or comfort, becoming objectified by the way it is measured.
Another way to discuss this concept would be to think about a gas, liquid or solid in terms of "reliable" measurement techniques. When introduced with a gradient, the particle with interact and have a desired result. The same substance is capable of being measured in any of these ways if given the right conditions or interaction. Is this interference?
I like the notion that before a particle is measured it has no way of being determined active or inactive, like Schrodingers cat thought experiment, alive or dead, until one of the probabilities wins. Each potentiality has probability, or likelihood that it will be the end result. Chances are though, the observer, or scientist, would have certain notions or intentions about the desired result that will give way to a specific outcome. In this way, research is very much a subjective tool. Some begin an experiment wanting to prove a specific hypothesis, ending with either success or another different type of success because questions are answered and the research process continues. When analyzing data it is very easy to have a bias. Since P scores are so small, it's easy to skew an outcome or eliminate unnecessary data to prove a hypothesis. Experiments and research go hand and hand, as do gathering and assimilating data.
Another way to discuss this concept would be to think about a gas, liquid or solid in terms of "reliable" measurement techniques. When introduced with a gradient, the particle with interact and have a desired result. The same substance is capable of being measured in any of these ways if given the right conditions or interaction. Is this interference?
I like the notion that before a particle is measured it has no way of being determined active or inactive, like Schrodingers cat thought experiment, alive or dead, until one of the probabilities wins. Each potentiality has probability, or likelihood that it will be the end result. Chances are though, the observer, or scientist, would have certain notions or intentions about the desired result that will give way to a specific outcome. In this way, research is very much a subjective tool. Some begin an experiment wanting to prove a specific hypothesis, ending with either success or another different type of success because questions are answered and the research process continues. When analyzing data it is very easy to have a bias. Since P scores are so small, it's easy to skew an outcome or eliminate unnecessary data to prove a hypothesis. Experiments and research go hand and hand, as do gathering and assimilating data.
Comments
Post a Comment