View Full Version : Clarification on QM
Tiberius
Jun12-03, 02:58 PM
I've seen this a lot in people's post on Quantum Mechanics and just to clarify this common misconception...
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND THE TALK ABOUT "OBSERVERS" AND "OBSERVATIONS" HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS OR LIFE OR LIVING THINGS "OBSERVING" THINGS.
In QM when they talk about observations collapsing wave functions, they are talking about devices that fire particles and measure the way they bounce back to measure the traits of OTHER particles. When this happens, those particles being fired into the system disturb that very system - that is ALL that is meant by "observation". It doesn't include or have anything to do with consciousness or anything mystical that people are always trying to attach to it. It simply means that when you fire a particle into another particle, it will disturb the particle being hit - basic common sense.
On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.
People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.
So, once and for all, let everyone here know that QM as a science has nothing to do with conscious beings or awareness.
Tom Mattson
Jun12-03, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.
And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics. [8)]
Tiberius,
I have recently read a number of of books on QM, QED etc. Admittedly they are writen for laymen and not scientist but they use a lot of quotes. Quotes like the observer is as much a part of the experiement as are the detectors and particles themselves. They repeatedly say the the observer is the scientist doing the experiment. They also refer to such things as the EPR paradox which explicidly states that it takes a person to make the local observation to colapse the probability wave and therefore instantly know the state of a distant particle. I admit that I do not understand QM or QED or QFT but then a lot of very well know and respected authors including Fynman himself admit that they don't either. They however do not agree with you. Me? I only know what I read and you are far out numbered by some very great people in the field.
New Agers also absolutely LOVE to pick up on that one. The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers, seems to fit very well with the idea of life after death, magic healing, psychic powers, ghosts, reincarnation and other hot topics for popular New Age books. Unfortunately the idea is appealing to those with existential worries, and will continue to be repeated as long as there are book stores that carry New Age material.
Grakhul
Jun12-03, 10:25 PM
The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers
New Agers believe this?? If ppl on earth observe the universe - and one of these ppl die - the universe would still exist for everyone left alive on Earth to observe. So-->if everyone on Earth were to die - the universe would still exist. There just would'nt be any humans observers left alive to contemplate it. I am sure the roaches will enjoy the view.
Les Sleeth
Jun12-03, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Eh
New Agers also absolutely LOVE to pick up on that one. The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers, seems to fit very well with the idea of life after death, magic healing, psychic powers, ghosts, reincarnation and other hot topics for popular New Age books. Unfortunately the idea is appealing to those with existential worries, and will continue to be repeated as long as there are book stores that carry New Age material.
Just a small quibble about putting the full blame on those flakey new agers for this problem. Who is it that publishes books on cats being dead and alive at the same time, who talks about the universe "running backwards" and all things that have happened going in reverse, and who is it that waxes poetic about time travel and endless bubbling and/or parallel universes?
In the absence of a sound theory to explain our origins, scientists too crank out some pretty wild stuff without the slightest bit of evidence to support their fantasies. Why should they be surprised when new agers pounce on it for their own purposes?
What's a new ager and what do they have to do with QM and understanding it?
Who is Frijtof Capra? I'm not familiar with him though I've seen the name. What is "Tao of Physics?" Maybe I shouldn't ask and a better off knowing. My question still stands What has all this have to do will QM or QED?
Did I and many others really misread and misinterpret what the pioneers of QM said and wrote from 1900 to 1986. I realize that they, the theorical physicists, have come a long way in the last 20 years but it seem to me that what they are doing is trying to come up with answers to the questions that the giants of QM created with the creation of the theory.
Les Sleeth
Jun13-03, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Royce
What's a new ager and what do they have to do with QM and understanding it?
Who is Frijtof Capra? I'm not familiar with him though I've seen the name. What is "Tao of Physics?" Maybe I shouldn't ask and a better off knowing. My question still stands What has all this have to do will QM or QED?
Did I and many others really misread and misinterpret what the pioneers of QM said and wrote from 1900 to 1986. I realize that they, the theorical physicists, have come a long way in the last 20 years but it seem to me that what they are doing is trying to come up with answers to the questions that the giants of QM created with the creation of the theory.
I believe Tiberius is referring to the tendency of new age theorists (and sometimes the creationist variation, intelligent design) to leap on anything scientific which might be interpreted as a link between consciousness and physical reality (outside the body). New age thinking pretty much means taking the slightest physical coincidence and then making huge leaps in logic to suggest a theory. One of my favorite is some guy I read who stated as fact that "herd animals share a common soul."
In the case of a collapsing wave fuction, when scientists reported the impossibility of observing particles without disturbing them because, for example, using light to observe a particle sends photons barging in, new age thinkers interpreted that to mean that act of consciouness looking is what disturbs, rather than photon bombardment.
Regarding Frijtof Capra, he wrote his book in the early '90's, I believe, trying to forge some sort of bond between science and certain metaphysical ideas. I think his real purpose was to try to popularize physics. It's funny that Tom was upset about his physics; when I read it I was upset with his metaphysics. In any case, I don't think he succeeded in demonstrating a link between physics and metaphysics whatsoever (which is not to say there isn't a link).
If that's the case, Les, they must think of me and others here as being a New Ager. I guess Einstein was too. We've been trying to link science and R_______ together since before scientist became scientists and were instead philosophers. It could go back to the Greeks for that matter. I think its funny how each new generation thinks that they are the New Age and all of there ideas are new. Of course we thought the same thing way back then.
Nice thread, Tiberius, though it might be more confortable in the Theoretical Physics Forum. I'm glad that you saw the need to clear that up, because I've even personally met people who think that QM supports Strong Anthropic principle, because of the "observer"/"observation" distinction made in layman texts.
Tiberius
Jun13-03, 05:00 PM
Royce:
I'm glad you acknowledge the books you've read on QM were for the layman. The problem is that, without the mathematical framework, when you talk about QM on a conceptual level, the language makes it very easy to misunderstand what it is they are saying. Once you look at what the conceptual descriptions are actually describing, then it becomes clear that consciousness has nothing to do with colapsing wave functions or QM. This math-to-language barrier problem is intensified by the fact that many of these pop-science books intentionally use over-hyped language, and state leaps of judgement, for whatever motives. So, to answer your question, yes - you've misread (and they've mis-written). And actually the "greatest minds" you mentioned would agree with me once you get down to the details.
Mentat:
Thanks for nice your comments on the thread. I chose the philosophy section because it is here that the misconception is most often made, and for philosophic purposes that it most often effects.
Originally posted by Tiberius
On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.
Aah... But there's your problem...[;)]
What if the collapse doesn't happen at the level of
our brain but only "beyond" ? Will our brain be in
a super-position of states ? What will that mean ?
Is the fact that that doesn't appear to happen
merely reflective of the statistical unlikeliness or
the tiny lenghts of time ?
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Just a small quibble about putting the full blame on those flakey new agers for this problem. Who is it that publishes books on cats being dead and alive at the same time, who talks about the universe "running backwards" and all things that have happened going in reverse, and who is it that waxes poetic about time travel and endless bubbling and/or parallel universes?
I think the big difference is that of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the New Agers. While books about time travel and parallel universes are speculative, scientists usually won't claim they are anything more. While such things may be allowed by physics, mere speculation on the implications of such does not promote an agenda. New Agers on the other hand, will take a pre-existing theory like QM, and make blatently wrong claims about the findings of such theories. They make these claims either because they are uneducated on the matter, or are being blatently dishonest. Worse yet, these New Age authors could care less about the accuracy of the material. They are only trying to make other New Age claims (such as psychics and mediums) sound more credible, and they don't mind getting the facts incorrect.
In the absence of a sound theory to explain our origins, scientists too crank out some pretty wild stuff without the slightest bit of evidence to support their fantasies. Why should they be surprised when new agers pounce on it for their own purposes?
Give some examples of such theories. I think you will find that while being difficult to test, these theories you view as wild are actually based on actual physics. If a theory is shown to be incorrect, scientists will typically look elsewhere for explanations. That is because science is about actually trying to figure out how things work. The New Age authors on the other hand, could care less how things work. They are ONLY interested in promoting their religious beliefs, and if misquoting some scientists on QM gives more credibility to their beliefs, they will go with it. Upon being corrected, they will continue to spew out the same nonsense over and over. As you said above, creationists do the same thing, with no interest in the actual science but only in the promotion of their own religious worldviews.
In short, if scientists showed the same kind of intellectual dishonesty as New Age authors, they would be in the same boat.
Les Sleeth
Jun14-03, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Eh
New Agers on the other hand, will take a pre-existing theory like QM, and make blatently wrong claims about the findings of such theories. They make these claims either because they are uneducated on the matter, or are being blatently dishonest. Worse yet, these New Age authors could care less about the accuracy of the material. They are only trying to make other New Age claims (such as psychics and mediums) sound more credible, and they don't mind getting the facts incorrect.
I have no love for new age or any kind of theorizing that is not guided, and limited, by facts. I think you are right to say most of it (at least what I've read) is garbage. I am not sure it is blatent dishonesty, but rather just very little awareness of how inflexible the rules of physics really are. They get too creative for the understanding of the universe they have.
Originally posted by Eh
I think the big difference is that of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the New Agers. While books about time travel and parallel universes are speculative, scientists usually won't claim they are anything more. While such things may be allowed by physics, mere speculation on the implications of such does not promote an agenda. . . . Give some examples of such theories. I think you will find that while being difficult to test, these theories you view as wild are actually based on actual physics.
Well, here we disagree some. I believe most scientists who disseminate their ideas to the public do have an agenda, and that is to convince everyone that we live in a purely materialistic universe. I agree with you that mostly scientists are "about actually trying to figure out how things work," but that doesn't mean they aren't biased toward materialistic explanations of everything, including the orgin of the universe, life, and consciousness.
A theory I have been hearing everywhere spoken like it is a fact is that the universe began with a quantum fluctuation in "nothingness." Besides the fact that "nothing" fluctuation is utterly nonsensical (if it can fluctuate, it is at the very least something with the potential to fluctuate!), there is not one bit of experimental evidence from which to draw this conclusion. If nothing better comes along, I bet you in a few years it will be every bit as accepted as "most likely" as my other favorite pet peeve already is.
That peeve is, and we don't need to argue this again, the claim that life is a product of spontaneous chemical genesis. Once more scientists' commitment to a materialistic explanation (i.e., an agenda), make them say chemogenesis is "most likely" when they cannot demonstrate chemistry has the potential to spontaneously kick into the sort of self-organizing gear it takes to reach a living system.
The genesis aspect, in fact, is exactly were every hole is in the materialist theory. They don't have a single confirmed answer there, just a bunch of theories patched in so that the materialist explanation can continue with the blessing of "sound science" (I imagine Walter Cronkite speaking that).
Meanwhile, and I think you know I don't believe an alternative to materialistic theory has to be the Biblical or any other kind of God, there are others who think, and feel, there is "something more." I don't believe science can reveal it, but maybe that's because science only reveals materialist stuff.
Of course, when not exaggerating claims of "most likely" I far prefer science to new age silliness. What I don't like is the discounting by materialistic types of all feeling. Built into us is our capacity for logic, but built in also is our feeling. All logic is not equal, and all feeling isn't equal. Some people feel so deeply they sense this "something more." They can't quantify it, they can't prove it. But with logic one can't grasp a feeling either.
To be a feeling person isn't a license to be stupid or emotional, it is just to recognize there are aspects of reality that can only be felt and never be rationalized or proved. But so what? If the "something more" can only be felt, and all you are open to is logic . . . well then you won't know it, and you may even start to devise a philosophy that is based on logic and observation, and which defines feeling as not to be trusted in the pursuit of truth.
Well, here we disagree some. I believe most scientists who disseminate their ideas to the public do have an agenda, and that is to convince everyone that we live in a purely materialistic universe. I agree with you that mostly scientists are "about actually trying to figure out how things work," but that doesn't mean they aren't biased toward materialistic explanations of everything, including the orgin of the universe, life, and consciousness.
I don't see it. Can you give some examples?
The way I see it, science will work the same regardless of whether physicalism or idealism is correct. As such, I don't think there are any theories that conflict with idealism. That's because any theory is neccessarily restricted to describing how the natural world works - and it cannot go beyond that with metaphysical claims.
A theory I have been hearing everywhere spoken like it is a fact is that the universe began with a quantum fluctuation in "nothingness." Besides the fact that "nothing" fluctuation is utterly nonsensical (if it can fluctuate, it is at the very least something with the potential to fluctuate!), there is not one bit of experimental evidence from which to draw this conclusion. If nothing better comes along, I bet you in a few years it will be every bit as accepted as "most likely" as my other favorite pet peeve already is.
There is some confusion here. The nothing fluctuation is not to the same as the philosophical topic of nonexistence. The void that is speculated to have existed prior to the big bang is merely a quantum state where time and space do not exist. That is, a state where nothing exists except the laws of physics. So while this theory does not reify the zero, it does deify the laws of physics - and any arbitrary laws at that. So the claim being made here is that the fundemental thing in the natural world is the laws of physics, not spacetime or any fields. But again, this is limited to the natural world. It does not say anything about the origin of the laws of physics, and cannot.
I doubt this rather silly idea is going to be accepted by most physicists any time soon.
That peeve is, and we don't need to argue this again, the claim that life is a product of spontaneous chemical genesis. Once more scientists' commitment to a materialistic explanation (i.e., an agenda), make them say chemogenesis is "most likely" when they cannot demonstrate chemistry has the potential to spontaneously kick into the sort of self-organizing gear it takes to reach a living system.
Keep in mind that science is only the study of the natural world, and there is no alternative to the idea. Given that life is ultimately chemistry, it seems to be plausible that the very origin of life to has a chemical origin. But that's just the restriction of science.
The genesis aspect, in fact, is exactly were every hole is in the materialist theory. They don't have a single confirmed answer there, just a bunch of theories patched in so that the materialist explanation can continue with the blessing of "sound science" (I imagine Walter Cronkite speaking that).
Hang on a minute here. I don't think any scientists would claim the area of abiogenesis is a solid science yet. Yes, it's all speculation at this point, but there are really no alternatives that could ever make any predictions.
Meanwhile, and I think you know I don't believe an alternative to materialistic theory has to be the Biblical or any other kind of God, there are others who think, and feel, there is "something more." I don't believe science can reveal it, but maybe that's because science only reveals materialist stuff.
That's the position I take. Science is only limited to the study of the natural world, regardless of whether or not it is all there is to existence. The question of "something more" does not change how the natural world works, and is really left to philosophy.
Originally posted by Tiberius
Mentat:
Thanks for nice your comments on the thread. I chose the philosophy section because it is here that the misconception is most often made, and for philosophic purposes that it most often effects.
Good point.
Les Sleeth
Jun15-03, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Eh
I don't see it. Can you give some examples?
I have so many books that do it, it would take me all day to list them. Everyone from Francis Crick to Daniel Dennett either imply or outright state that no other explanation beyond physical processes are, or will be, required to explain life and consciousness.
Originally posted by Eh
Hang on a minute here. I don't think any scientists would claim the area of abiogenesis is a solid science yet. Yes, it's all speculation at this point, but there are really no alternatives that could ever make any predictions.
You are missing my point. The way it goes is, you watch a Discovery Channel special on evolution with scientists leading the discussions, you read any textbook on evolution, you read scientists popularizing evolution or origin of life theories, and what you hear is, "life most likely began in the 'soup' of the pre-biotic oceans when macromolecules spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living cell."
That "most likely" is what I object to for reasons I've stated, and can be generalized as not having sufficient evidence of self organization to claim it is most likely. The statement should read, "materialist theory states . . ." and then I'd have absolutely no objection to that.
Originally posted by Eh
Keep in mind that science is only the study of the natural world, and there is no alternative to the idea. Given that life is ultimately chemistry, it seems to be plausible that the very origin of life to has a chemical origin. But that's just the restriction of science.
But now you are doing it too. First of all, life processes are chemistry. No one knows what the "living" part is (nor consciousness either). So when you say "plausible," that shows of your materialist assumption already in place, which is that the missing part will be physical in nature. And although there are not competing physical theories, but there are competing theories.
The very reason the originating principle may be missing is because it is not available to empirical study, and therefore may be metaphysical. If one does a genuinely scholarly study (as opposed to a topical study) of those most successful with metaphysical endeavors, they suggest originating type principles are metaphysical. While dedicated materialists might not like that as evidence, lots of others do.
So, the metaphysical explanation is every bit a plausible in its arena as the materialist one is in its arena. Why then don't scientists just say "in matters of origins, it is unknown" and leave their little materialist assumption of "most likely" out of it?
Originally posted by Eh
The way I see it, science will work the same regardless of whether physicalism or idealism is correct. As such, I don't think there are any theories that conflict with idealism.
I don't understand why you are contrasting physicalism with idealism, unless it refers to something besides what I've said.
Originally posted by Eh
The void that is speculated to have existed prior to the big bang is merely a quantum state where time and space do not exist. That is, a state where nothing exists except the laws of physics.
I am glad to hear that, at least it makes more sense than absolutely nothing. I still don't buy that a quantum fluctuation alone generated the forces and energy needed to create our universe. Right now such fluctuations look only powerful enough to generate virtual particles.
Originally posted by Eh
That's the position I take. Science is only limited to the study of the natural world, regardless of whether or not it is all there is to existence. The question of "something more" does not change how the natural world works, and is really left to philosophy.
Now that is idealistic. If you feel that way, you have my total respect. But it isn't what I read and hear from scientists in the media. And just to be clear, I don't think metaphysical stuff should be mixed with the physical. I think they are two separate things and should be treated that way.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I have so many books that do it, it would take me all day to list them. Everyone from Francis Crick to Daniel Dennett either imply or outright state that no other explanation beyond physical processes are, or will be, required to explain life and consciousness.
It helps to remember that within science, the above is true. That is, a scientific explanation of consciousness must include physical processes. Anything else is metaphysics, and not science.
You are missing my point. The way it goes is, you watch a Discovery Channel special on evolution with scientists leading the discussions, you read any textbook on evolution, you read scientists popularizing evolution or origin of life theories, and what you hear is, "life most likely began in the 'soup' of the pre-biotic oceans when macromolecules spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living cell."
Again, you must realize that this is based only on the search for an scientific explanation of origins. Within the scientific view of the natural world, there obviously are theories that are more plausible than others. But it doesn't mean those views need to be viewed outside a scientific context. Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself.
But now you are doing it too. First of all, life processes are chemistry. No one knows what the "living" part is (nor consciousness either). So when you say "plausible," that shows of your materialist assumption already in place, which is that the missing part will be physical in nature. And although there are not competing physical theories, but there are competing theories.
There are no scientific competing theories. Again, we can make statements about what is most probable, but only within a scientific context.
So, the metaphysical explanation is every bit a plausible in its arena as the materialist one is in its arena. Why then don't scientists just say "in matters of origins, it is unknown" and leave their little materialist assumption of "most likely" out of it?
See above, as the same applies.
I don't understand why you are contrasting physicalism with idealism, unless it refers to something besides what I've said.
It is quite relevant here, because the topic of whether scientists have a physicalist bias or not has come up. I am saying it doesn't matter - science is compatible with both, and thus any scientific claims will not necessarily have a claim in favor of physicalism.
I am glad to hear that, at least it makes more sense than absolutely nothing. I still don't buy that a quantum fluctuation alone generated the forces and energy needed to create our universe. Right now such fluctuations look only powerful enough to generate virtual particles.
That is where inflation comes in.
Now that is idealistic. If you feel that way, you have my total respect. But it isn't what I read and hear from scientists in the media. And just to be clear, I don't think metaphysical stuff should be mixed with the physical. I think they are two separate things and should be treated that way.
It's not idealistic, because I'm merely stating that science is neutral to metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean I physicalism is wrong, it's just that science cannot be used to support such metaphysical positions.
Eh,
My respect for you grows with every post. Unlike others including many scientists in the media, you say that physical science and metephysics are compatable and not mutually exclusive. I have been trying unsuccessfully to make this point for weeks. My, and I think it's clear, that Les's main objection is the repeated overstatement of the proofs and facts that some scientist claim to have requarding the metaphysical, spiritual or religious.
An example, simply stated is that science says that it can not and does not investigate metaphiysics because its subjective and they can and do only investigate the material. In the next sentence science says that since it does not investigate metaphysics it has no evidence that anything immaterial or metaphysical exists. Then of course the illogical conclusion that since science has no evidence that any thing immaterial or metaphisical exist, science has PROVEN that it DOES NOT EXIST.
This, to me, is the same thing that you claim the New Agers are doing. You are one of the first that I have read in these forums or vertually anywhere else with very few exception who has actually stated the true logical position of science. I salute you.
As for the need of an observer to collapse the probability waves, I'm still not convinced as most of the books were not pop culture science books but were written by very respected scientist and science authors; but then I'm not convinced that ALL is probability waves in the first place and that actual real particles and EM wave actually really do exist in the own right. I personally was trying to show the illogical position of those who claim that math and probability waves are all that exists and was the begining of the universe.
Please don't ask me what my belief system is. It'll only encourage me.
Les Sleeth
Jun16-03, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Eh
It helps to remember that within science, the above is true. That is, a scientific explanation of consciousness must include physical processes. Anything else is metaphysics, and not science.
Eh, I would think you'd know me well enough by now to know I am clear about what science is, but maybe I’ve been ambiguous. We totally agree about what science is supposed to do. If you read my posts carefully, you will see I have not recommended mixing science and metaphysics. There is absolutely nothing better than science for understanding the physical universe. I trust and respect it for that totally, and have little patience for people who want to ignore it so they can substitute crackpot new age ideas.
Obviously there are physical processes involved with life and consciousness, and clearly it is advantageous to understand what they are and how they work. That does not mean, however, one can assume that life and consciousness are essentially physical. When I swim, I am in water, moving in water, and water is all around me. Should I assume my association with water makes me essentially water?
Originally posted by Eh Within the scientific view of the natural world, there obviously are theories that are more plausible than others. But it doesn't mean those views need to be viewed outside a scientific context. . . . It's not idealistic, because I'm merely stating that science is neutral to metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean physicalism is wrong, it's just that science cannot be used to support such metaphysical positions.
You are talking about the ideals of science, I am talking about what is actually going on in the media with certain scientists, and they are definitely not neutral.
Again, we have absolutely no disagreement about scientific ideals. But if science has no answer for the origin of life, why do you think it is okay for them to say to the world (by the various means I’ve already listed) that self-organizing chemistry is “most probable”? They don’t have the evidence, the sort of spontaneous self-organizing chemistry potential they need, even for science standards of claiming “most probable.” In fact, they ain’t even close, so how is it “most probable”?
Without evidence it fails empiricism’s own standard for hypothesizing. It is merely the subjective opinion, unsupported by adequate evidence, of those who believe the universe is purely material. It is therefore biased and unscientific to say most probable.
Originally posted by Eh There are no scientific competing theories. Again, we can make statements about what is most probable, but only within a scientific context.
That is exactly what I said. I said there are no competing scientific theories. But there are competing metaphysical theories. Some people who've taken the time and effort to look within, and I mean serious time and work, have found something other than physical inside themselves; also, some of these serious inner practitioners have felt the non-physical thing within them was part of something much larger outside themselves.
Can science investigate this? No. Can individual human beings investigate this? Yes. Have any highly respected individuals investigated and produced significant results? Yes (e.g., the Buddha). Is that evidence? Yes. But those who are biased toward a material explanation will say, “that’s outside the realm of science,” ignore it as potential evidence, and then say to the world “chemogenesis is most likely” even if they can’t support it with evidence.
What they should say is that they don’t know because these questions of origin of life and consciousness are important. Far too important to tolerate cheating by people feigning objectivity while harboring (and trying to hide) their materialist bias. In this sense, they are being every bit as dishonest as the new age philosophers they love to criticize.
Originally posted by Eh That is where inflation comes in.
I still don’t see it. This universe is packed with energy. How would all that energy be generated by inflating a fluctuation? It seems like it would have the opposite effect actually. Even inflation itself seems like it would require energy to drive it. What’s the origin [:D] of this energy?
Royce,
That is the gist of it. It's not only that New Agers make unwarrented conclusions from science, but they misrepresent what the actual theories are about. Whether or not this is deliberate or just an uneducated mistake, is really anyone's guess.
LW Sleeth,
There really doesn't seem to be much disagreement here. The only real clarification is the difference between the tactics of New Agers and the claims made by scientists. While it would not be scientific to make metaphysical claims on the basis of scientific findings alone, it is another thing entirely to lie about what those findings are in the first place.
Fliption
Jun19-03, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Tiberius
On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.
What's interesting to me is that everyone here (except for maybe Royce) has accepted what Tiberius has said in the original post as true. Seeing many of the comments on this explains a lot to me because I have had a lot of questions around this very same topic. I too have seen and read many of the books that use QM as a basis for some strange things. And I would wonder why, if this is true, is all of this ignored for the most part in these forums? I find that QM rarely is mentioned in the Philosophy forum. So I set out to try to learn for myself what it means to say that "observation collapses the wave function". What is the meaning of the term "observation" when used by science in making this statement? Surprisingly, this was not easy to find out. It's no wonder there is so many different opinions on what it means. I did eventually find however a good source of information that directly focused on this question and eventually understand it somewhat. Unfortunately, this understanding is not consistent with what Tiberious is saying. Granted it does not support the idea that observation equals Consciousness either. What I learned is that the reason there is so much confusion on this and so little information is because, the definition of "observation" or the mechanism for wave function collapse, is still being studied and determined. This very topic is exactly what is up for interpretation in QM! So, to me, it seems Tiberious has some knowledge that no one else has about how QM works.
The studies that I read about were specifically geared toward trying to understand exactly what it is that collapse the wave function. The studies wanted to see if what Tiberious is claiming is true. Does the collapse happen because of particles bouncing off one another and disturbing the system? The studies were set up in such a way that none of this particle disturbance could take place yet measurements could still be made. (This involved a sophisticated setup of mirrors) And yet, the collapse still happened. It was eventually determined from these studies that the collapse happens as soon as the particle state becomes "knowable". It does not require a conscious observer, but if a conscious observer can come along anytime after the experiment and calculate or "know" the state using information provided by the experiment, then the collapse will happen during the experiment. To be analagous to an algebra equation, I guess you can say that if the equation has 2 unknowns then the answer is unknown. But as soon as the experiment can communicate information about one of those unknown variables, the wave function will collapse. This happens whether or not a conscious observer is present.
While this isn't near as sexy for new agers, it still would be difficult to try to completely separate the implications of these experiments from "conscious" knowledge. This is what ought to be discussed in the philosophy forums on a regular basis. But after reading the comments here I at least understand now why it isn't. Perhaps it should be.
Unfortunately, I do not have a link to any information about these studies right now. I just saw this thread and wanted to post this and see if perhaps others may know what studies I'm talking about and correct me if I've misunderstood them. But I will start looking for some information on this and let you know. I will admit that much of the details of the experiment were clearly over my head but the intention and the results of the experiments seemed clear.
Eh, et al, I am in the process of readings Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell." In Chapter 4 he explains wave function as a result of the uncertainty principle. The wave is a combination of the probability waves of the position and velocity of a particle. It became clear to me as I read it that the particle exists and is real reguardless of the state of the wave function or if an observer is or is not present.
It is just that we nor even God (I'm paraphrasing Hawking here, not introducing God into QM on my own) can know the exact position and momentum of a particle.
The particle(s) does exist, its that we cannot know its state, location or momentum. I obviously misunderstood, confusing the wave form for the particle itself. I'm still not sure about the "Observer." Even after reading Fliptons last post here, the question that immediately came to mind was; how does the particle or event know that it has become 'knowable'? Doest this imply some form of consciousness or nonlocal knowledge as in the EPR paradox?
The more about QM and QED I read and think I'm beginning to understand the more questions come to mind and I haven't even began QFT yet and good book suggestions?
Fliption
Jun19-03, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Royce
It is just that we nor even God (I'm paraphrasing Hawking here, not introducing God into QM on my own) can know the exact position and momentum of a particle.
Hmm well I can certainly understand your confusion over QM. I've had it for some time. This question you've raised is one of the questions I was trying to find out when I was doing all the reading on this. I wanted to know if the uncertainty principal was referring to an actual non-placement of the particle or was it just a statement of our knowledge? If it is the latter, than there's nothing quirky about QM at all. The odd thing is, everything I've read doesn't state what you've just paraphrased from Hawking. I'm not sure how wave-particle duality can be explained if we hold this position. If the particle really does exist in a specific state that we just aren't aware of, then why does it appear to be a wave? Also, why in the world would people be postulating a "Many Worlds" interpretation if the uncertainty only existed in our mind? I even recall reading discussions about how the state of a particle many years in the past changed based on the way it was being observed today.
I think much of the confusion on QM is certainly because it is difficult to grasp. Then this is compounded by people who interpret it to be whatever they want it to be. Its complexity allows this because few people can't call them on it. I've found that many people in this forum try to explain every thing away as if there is no mystery to anything. It's as if they long for the days of classical physics. While on the other hand if you read at the source you see quotes like this...
"Anyone who is not shocked by the quantum theory has not understood it."
- Niels Bohr
Flipton, You have stated my state of confusion exactly. Depending on who I read at different times I come away with something different. Is the wave form real or just a mathematical model of what we do not know and cannot know. How can a physical particle know when it is being observed or how its being observed.
In the classic two slit experiment when we look for a photon particle we see a photon particle when we look for a photon wave interfering with itself that is what we see. This to me is more than just a mathematical model of positional probability wave forms.
I have read this in too many books to be a misunderstanding. Then we come to Feynman's sum over histories theory, how can one particle travel all possible paths? I can understand it if we're talking macro events where billions of particles are moving from A to B.
It gets worse not better the more I read, even Hawking's over simplification in "Nutshell" can be confusing in light of what I have previously read. I can understand losing information in a black hole and vertual radiation of a black hole but does that mean that the state of the half that is not swallowed by the black cannot be determined at all, ever. He seemed to indicate this when he addressed the EPR paradox. I'll have to reread that to figure out what he's talking about, probably several times.
P-branes or just branes is another matter. Hawking at one point says the branes are nothing more that mathematical models and do not actually exist but gives predictions that seem to be verifiable. He then begins talking as if they really do exist. No wonder I and I'm sure others are confused. Hawking is usually very clear and easy to understand at least in what he's saying even if the concept he's talking about is hard to understand and accept; but, even he can't make QM clear.
In my humple opinion the whole thing stinks of magic and mystism.
Who was it that replied when told and idea, "Yeah, it's wild; but, is it wild enough?"
You might want to give Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, And the Theory of Everything a read. The Amazon link is at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316326143/qid=1056129197/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_26/002-8534748-1368813?v=glance&s=books
It's not very deep or long book, but you might find it helpful because it does cover the very topics you've brought up. Specifically, it introduces the concept of a quantum field, the notion that particles are not billiard ball like structures floating around, and how real the wave function actually is. It will certain help with some confusion.
Fliption
Jun20-03, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Royce
Flipton, You have stated my state of confusion exactly.
Yes, I understand exactly what you're talking about. I can find what appears to be contadicting information everywhere. But our questions appear to be the same so at least I know it isn't just me. It looks as if the book that EH has suggested might be helpful. It also looks as if it is agreeing with my last post. I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls allows what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics, I think there should be alot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.
Tiberius
Jun20-03, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, I understand exactly what you're talking about. I can find what appears to be contadicting information everywhere. But our questions appear tt be the same. It looks as if the book that EH has suggested is agreeing with my last post. I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls lends itself to what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics In my humble opinion, I think there should be alot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.
Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.
Fliption
Jun20-03, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.
OK that's clear. But I think we still don't agree on the point of the word "observation". Your explanation in the original post is not consistent with much that I've read on the topic. So if I can rephrase, I think there is a lot more to the concept of "observation" then was mentioned in the original post. You can read all of my earlier replies to see why I think that and we can go from there. If I'm mis-reading everything I've read on QM then I would love to get that resolved.
I've been away and busy for awhile and apologize for the late response. If I'm resurecting a better of dead thread I also apologize.
I wanted to tell both Eh and flipton theI found the book on Amazon and ordered it, should get it later this week.
I do think that my understanding is correct that the observer is the scientist setting up the experiement and doing the measurements is as much of the results of the experiment as the detectors or measuring device and the wave/particle being measured. I want to say the it was Neils Bohr himself who said just that. If I am wrong about who said that please correct me.
Flipton, I think that your right that the wave form is more than just our inability to know the exact position and momentum of a particle for the same reasons.
Whilke some of the books and thinking may be out of date now the last one that I read of QM was published in 2000 and said explicitly that the two slit experiments was still the main mystery of QM.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
Fliption
Jun22-03, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Royce
I've been away and busy for awhile and apologize for the late response. If I'm resurecting a better of dead thread I also apologize.
I wanted to tell both Eh and flipton theI found the book on Amazon and ordered it, should get it later this week.
Well, as far as I'm concerned this is not a dead thread. It seems Tiberius unloaded on all the new agers and then scrammed [:)] Because I have not agreed with what he is saying and yet this thread is sinking down the page [:(]
I think this topic should continue to be discussed and I think it should come up more often in other threads. It is apparent from this thread that few people understand it so maybe thats why it rarely gets mentioned.
If you run across some interesting things in that book and want to discuss them please start new threads on it. I am always interested and maybe we can get some others to participate. Depending on the nature of the question the thread may belong in either the physics forum or this one.
M. Gaspar
Jun24-03, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
I've seen this a lot in people's post on Quantum Mechanics and just to clarify this common misconception...
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND THE TALK ABOUT "OBSERVERS" AND "OBSERVATIONS" HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS OR LIFE OR LIVING THINGS "OBSERVING" THINGS.
In QM when they talk about observations collapsing wave functions, they are talking about devices that fire particles and measure the way they bounce back to measure the traits of OTHER particles. When this happens, those particles being fired into the system disturb that very system - that is ALL that is meant by "observation". It doesn't include or have anything to do with consciousness or anything mystical that people are always trying to attach to it. It simply means that when you fire a particle into another particle, it will disturb the particle being hit - basic common sense.
On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.
People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.
So, once and for all, let everyone here know that QM as a science has nothing to do with conscious beings or awareness.
This was explained on another thread and...I got it.
Tell me, did you come out of the womb with all the knowledge you have now? Or did you acquire it bit by bit?
This is how I learn compassion. Now, when I am tempted to put down lesser lights than mine, I'll remember how it felt when one who is better endowed between the ears than I attempted to discredit outright certain avenues of thought because of one misconception.
Thanks.
M. Gaspar
Jun24-03, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
Well, as far as I'm concerned this is not a dead thread. It seems Tiberius unloaded on all the new agers and then scrammed [:)] Because I have not agreed with what he is saying and yet this thread is sinking down the page [:(]
I think this topic should continue to be discussed and I think it should come up more often in other threads. It is apparent from this thread that few people understand it so maybe thats why it rarely gets mentioned.
If you run across some interesting things in that book and want to discuss them please start new threads on it. I am always interested and maybe we can get some others to participate. Depending on the nature of the question the thread may belong in either the physics forum or this one.
Despite my reaction to the condescending tone of its orginator, I APPRECIATE this thread. I'm here to learn...and it will never be through MATH. I don't consider myself a "New Ager" and "metaphysics" is not a four-letter word. In fact -- as I have posted elsewhere -- it's quite RESPECTABLE according to "The American Heritage Dictionary":
METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe (cosmology).
If my thinking leads me to conjecture that the Universe is conscious while another mind conjurs up "Superstrings"...well, that's part of the PROCESS of EXPLORING the POSSIBILITIES. And, who knows, in the end, we may BOTH be right!
COOPERATION has proven to be a more effective (and enlightened?) way than "territorialism" to conduct a society...or a relationship. Perhaps we -- the human race -- would make better progress in learning about the Universe if the left-brainers and the right-brainers would "make nice"...sharing info in each other's languages in the spirit of mutual support...and ADMIRATION.
Cause I sure as HECK admire left-brainers...even the smug ones.
..tho I find the humane ones -- like Tom -- more useful .
M. Gaspar
Jun24-03, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Tom
And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics. [8)]
Oh well.
M. Gaspar,
Here all this time I thought Tiberius was chewing me out. Welcome to the QM Dimwit Club of PF. So far we have three self admitted members. I nominate Flipton for president.
I got the book but haven't had a chance to more than look at it. I thought it funny that it is written by Gribbin, one of my favorite authors who writes scientific books for us nonscientifists. AMoung his other books that I've read was "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" which is where I got a lot of my information on QM from.
He is one of the pop-culture authors that Tiberius accused me of reading. Don't you love the irony of it.
But that usually what happens, to me any way. Everytime I pop off about something I usually end up with my foot in my mouth.
M. Gaspar
Jun25-03, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
Here all this time I thought Tiberius was chewing me out. Welcome to the QM Dimwit Club of PF. So far we have three self admitted members. I nominate Flipton for president.
I got the book but haven't had a chance to more than look at it. I thought it funny that it is written by Gribbin, one of my favorite authors who writes scientific books for us nonscientifists. AMoung his other books that I've read was "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" which is where I got a lot of my information on QM from.
He is one of the pop-culture authors that Tiberius accused me of reading. Don't you love the irony of it.
But that usually what happens, to me any way. Everytime I pop off about something I usually end up with my foot in my mouth.
Well, if there are three of us, I think we can bring him DOWN!
Someone, SUMMON TIBERIUS!
Listen [8)] : I can't remember who said it, but they said they wouldn't join a club that would have them as a member! The QM Dimwit Club certainly falls into that category for me.
When I saw "Clarification on QM" offered as a thread by Tiberius, I actually got excited (edit: well, "anticipatory", anyway). I was going to get some info from someone who knew beans. But then it took those beans and spit them in my eye ...whether he was aiming a "me" or not.
I've done some mentoring myself in my time, so I guess I was expecting content, generosity and encouragement.
Wrong again, Gaspar! Can't you get ANYTHING right?!
M. Gaspar
Jun25-03, 10:22 PM
I see that Tiberius is NOT a "PF Mentor" ...don't know why I thought he was (gee, that membership is looking better and better [6)] )
Anyway, back to the recommended -- and denigrated -- books![;)]
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Listen [8)] : I can't remember who said it, but they said they wouldn't join a club that would have them as a member! The QM Dimwit Club certainly falls into that category for me.
I think it was Mark Twain. I'm not much of a joiner either; but, in this instance I was volunteered. They only other club that I would like to join is the Procrastinators Club of America but I haven't gotten around to it yet, maybe after they have their first meeting I'll sign up.
When I saw "Clarification on QM" offered as a thread by Tiberius, I actually got excited (edit: well, "anticipatory", anyway). I was going to get some info from someone who knew beans. But then it took those beans and spit them in my eye ...whether he was aiming a "me" or not.
I've been shot down so many time here that I feel like a very inept WW I pilot. Some times it was, of course, justified and I had it coming. Other time it was just some one take pot shot at me. You are not the only one M. G. Everyone seems to be fair game around here at one time or another. Any way you have no choice in the matter you have been deligated as a founding member of the QDC of PF.
Between being assigned books to read and books I want to read and keeping up with all the posts I'm running out of time to sleep. Thank God I'm not this busy at work.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Royce
I've been shot down so many time here that I feel like a very inept WW I pilot. Some times it was, of course, justified and I had it coming. Other time it was just some one take pot shot at me. You are not the only one M. G. Everyone seems to be fair game around here at one time or another. Any way you have no choice in the matter you have been deligated as a founding member of the QDC of PF.
Guess what: I'm over it already. [;)]
Must be the up-side of a short attention span!
Still, I would have preferred that Tiberius return to the scene of his crime ...ya know, man's inhumanity to dimwits? But I'm sure we'll catch up with each other down the road...and that I won't be playing road kill to his hit and run.
As to membership: OK, I accept...except that I've already been LEFT OUT of the acronym: shouldn't it be QMDC of PF? I'll work up a logo. [6)]
Meanwhile, I think we need to go elsewhere to get that "Clarification on QM" we were enticed here with.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Tiberius
Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.
I was re-reading this thread to "mine" any actual info contained therein on the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics. Fact is, I eschew "mystics" myself. However, on these threads, it seems to me, that there are more people here than not who are eager "to listen to people who try to clear" things up. And SOME of us might even have a contribution to make after we get the info in "our language".
My arguement is not with your position regarding misinformation, nor even the fact that scientists themselves are often LOUSY COMMUNICATORS. My issue is with your attitude toward me and other right-brainers.
For instance, I've never heard Sagan say: "Hey, idiots! So you think you know something about science...?"
The Universe may or may not be conscious...but you'll have to concede there is consciousness "in" it. Thus, any cosmological theory that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.
My interest is not "woo woo". And my participation is not irrelevant.
Never thought of it that way. Here I thought a short attention span was a deficit. Learn somthing new every day!
I accept your suggested change and it has been entered into the minutes of the first meeting of QMDC of PF.
Seriously, I do think, along with Flipton, that Tiberius was over simplifying QM and just unloading on what he thought were a bunch or couple of New Agers. I'd never heard the term before this thread. My understanding of the obsever being a person or mind and a part of the experiment is not original with me nor any one book or author. The outcome of the experiment does seem to be influenced by what the observer is looking for and trying to determine. Far great mind than mine have repeatedly said this and as Flipton asked then what about the many world theory that came out of the Copenhegen conference? I can understand that it may now be out dated speculation but it still has not been resolved to everyones satisfaction.
I don't know what our reading now; but, I do suggest "In Search for Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. He also wrote a sequel "In Search for Schrodinger's kittens as well as a number of other good books on science, physics and chosmology; easy to read and good primers for us nonscientists.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Fliption
...I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls allows what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics, I think there should be alot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.
I've captured this shorter quote just to save on space. Please continue to share your interpretations.
But the real question is: why are YOU a charter member of QMDC? (No offense, Royce.)
Meanwhile, you and Royce have been added to my VERY SELECTIVE "Buddy" list...but you're not in "good company" because I'm adding Tiberius, too.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Royce
Learn somthing new every day!
No. That's Altzheimers!
I accept your suggested change and it has been entered into the minutes of the first meeting of QMDC of PF.
You're making me smile, Royce...and you wouldn't like me when I smile... (Hulk reference: very highbrow. See? I DO belong!)
I don't know what our reading now; but, I do suggest "In Search for Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. He also wrote a sequel "In Search for Schrodinger's kittens as well as a number of other good books on science, physics and chosmology; easy to read and good primers for us nonscientists.
I don't know about YOU, but I feel as if I'm reading a book a day on these threads! And writing one, too!
I gotta get a life. [6)]
I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Royce
I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)
He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!!
I'm having too much fun. PM. Gotta go.
Fliption
Jun26-03, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!!
SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!
Looks like you 2 have got this thread all figured out. It is certainly good to see that other people are reading about QM and have the same questions I do. It means I am not alone. It is also encouraging to me that you guys see this thread for what it truly is. It was certainly not a clarification on QM. It still could be if either Tiberius or some of the people who agreed with him initially would come in and discuss it. I have tried to explain why I think that Tiberius' "clarification" is misleading but no one has responded. I agree with you guys...looks like we may need to get this clarification elsewhere.
As for membership into this club.... I will admit I belong. But I also would argue that everyone who posted in this thread ALSO belongs!
Unless of course a prerequisite to getting in the club is that you have to admit you are ignorant. Some people might not fit all the criteria then. [:)]
While ignorance is certainly a criteria, it is the addmission of ignorance and/or confusion and/or lack of understanding that is the primary requirement for membership in QMDC of PF! This of course eliminates Tiberius from membership as he, as well as others, are absolutely sure of everything and that everything has been absolutely PROVEN by science.
Yes, I'm being nasty. I hope Tiberius is out of town too or I'm really going to get swatted down, probably with a sledge hammer.
(We/I really have to stop picking on him.)
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about Tiberius.
Why would you, Fliption, crush me -- and, of course, Royce -- like "bugs" when you're a bug, too? Maybe you're a BIGGER bug...but not as BIG as Tiberius!
And isn't he well-named? He just seems MONU MENTAL! .
Let's see if he's big enough to share what he knows -- or what he thinks he knows -- and "deliver the goods" on this thread.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Royce
I hope Tiberius is out of town too or I'm really going to get swatted down, probably with a sledge hammer.
(We/I really have to stop picking on him.) [/B]
I'm not picking on him. I'm killing time until he returns.
And he WILL return.
But I agree with you: enough about Mr. T and more about QM .
Originally posted by Fliption
SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!
Looks like you 2 have got this thread all figured out. It is certainly good to see that other people are reading about QM and have the same questions I do. It means I am not alone. It is also encouraging to me that you guys see this thread for what it truly is. It was certainly not a clarification on QM. It still could be if either Tiberius or some of the people who agreed with him initially would come in and discuss it. I have tried to explain why I think that Tiberius' "clarification" is misleading but no one has responded. I agree with you guys...looks like we may need to get this clarification elsewhere.
Please explain again what it is that you disagree with, in Tiberius' post. It seemed perfectly sound to me.
M. Gaspar
Jun26-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Please explain again what it is that you disagree with, in Tiberius' post. It seemed perfectly sound to me.
He hurt our feelings. [:(]
Scroll back.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He hurt our feelings. [:(]
Scroll back.
I was refering to why you disagreed with his explanation of QM. I am perfectly aware of his having inadvertantly insulted you, when talked about people who read books written by people who misunderstood QM.
Fliption
Jun26-03, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about Tiberius.
Why would you, Fliption, crush me --
I thought you were talking about me based on below
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Royce
I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!!
I'm having too much fun. PM. Gotta go.
When he said in parenthesis "we should quit picking on him", I thought he was talking about me. But I guess you could read it 2 ways [:)]
Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everthing I've read the observer is a necessary and intragal part of any QM experiment. The pop culture authors I've been reading and quoting or at leasst paraphrasing are Gribbins, Feynman, and such others. We or at least I have never heard of New Agers before this thread. While he named no names we assumed that he was talking about MG and me as we were speculating on QM and consciousness and awareness.
Fliption
Jun26-03, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I was refering to why you disagreed with his explanation of QM. I am perfectly aware of his having inadvertantly insulted you, when talked about people who read books written by people who misunderstood QM.
Mentat, I would recommend you go back and read my earlier posts. I think it's pretty clear where there may be problems with what he is saying. It appears he has over simplified a theory that many respected scientists have admitted they are stumped on. It appears to me that if his explanation is true then QM is nothing but an extension of classical physics. I am certainly open to other views on it as I have said that this topic is one that I have many questions about. But in this case I would have to reconcile in my mind the view that Tiberius has presented with just about everything else I have read on the topic.
Les Sleeth
Jun26-03, 11:48 PM
Just speaking for myself, I want to apologize to Tiberius. After seeing some of the things that have been said, I feel I might have been responsible for inspiring a less than "welcome" attitude here.
I tried to joke about it in an another post (which I deleted), but I think I need to say it outright and upfront. Tiberius . . . welcome. I hope you stick around.
M. Gaspar
Jun27-03, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Just speaking for myself, I want to apologize to Tiberius. After seeing some of the things that have been said, I feel I might have been responsible for inspiring a less than "welcome" attitude here.
I tried to joke about it in an another post (which I deleted), but I think I need to say it outright and upfront. Tiberius . . . welcome. I hope you stick around.
Surprisingly, I feel the same way.
I agree, Les. We have been chatting and amusing ourselves to keep this thread alive in hopes that Tiberius or anyone else would come in and educate us or at least attempt to clarify it for us. Admittedly at first our feeling were hurt, our feathers ruffled, whatever and we were getting even; but, that has long since passed. We await the teacher to come.
I questioned reviving this thread and thought it maight have been better to let it die. I'm beginning to think that is the case.
Having said that I must admit that we have had fun, even if it was at Tiberius's expense and I've made a couple of new friends so all was not wasted.
Fliption
Jun27-03, 10:37 AM
Hmmm well I hope it isn't perceived that I have displayed an unproductive attitude in this thread. It certainly wasn't my intent. Hence I feel no need for atonement. I'm a bit dissapointed that it appears I will have to continue to wait to have a good QM discussion in these forums.
I have not given up on it though. While I don't think it was Tiberius' intent to have an open discussion with this thread, that doesn't mean that he/she isn't willing to have one in another thread. Or anyone else that particpated here for that matter. I was hoping to prod them into that in this thread, but it may be that everyone is just too busy at the moment to respond with thoughtful input. I definitely understand that![g)]
Flipton,
I'm just curious as to what specifically you've read from physicists that throws confusion over the issue? They are notorious for being sloppy with the english language, but I haven't seen any that say consciousness is a necessary property of an "observer". So is there anything particular?
Les Sleeth
Jun27-03, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm well I hope it isn't perceived that I have displayed an unproductive attitude in this thread. It certainly wasn't my intent. Hence I feel no need for atonement.
No, I don't think you have either, or need to be contrite. I mean mostly myself, I've been cranky (a tough week).
Originally posted by Fliption
I have not given up on it though. While I don't think it was Tiberius' intent to have an open discussion with this thread, that doesn't mean that he/she isn't willing to have one in another thread. Or anyone else that particpated here for that matter. I was hoping to prod them into that in this thread, but it may be that everyone is just too busy at the moment to respond with thoughtful input. I definitely understand that![g)]
I have to echo EH here . . . I honestly thought the issue of observation and a collapsing wave function was settled; that it was only a misunderstanding by the general public (including me at one time), while experts always understood what was happening. Are you able to find the sources you've been referring to?
Les, Iknow you weren't address ing me, but the sources I've been reading were among others, John Gribbins, a respected scientist and author, "In search for Schroedinger's Cat", In Search For Schroedinger's kittens" and Richard Feynman's "QED". I've read and am reading a few others but not exclusively about QM, some others that I can't remember off hand. Most of them began by giving the history of the developement of QM and quoted many of the scientist involved and their speculations.
I may have read to much into it or mis understood the allusions or metaphors to be fact. I am not a mathematician nor a scientist so I can not read really technical or mathematical scientific works and get asnything out of them.
Gribbin himself says that the theorys and experiements agree to
astonishing degrees but says that it is QM cookbooks that work and that there are still major questions to be answered about QM itself.
Unfortunately I got those books from the library so I don't have them at hand to quote of refer to.
Tiberius
Jun27-03, 04:32 PM
I didn't realize there was much else to discuss here but Fliption mentioned it in another thread. Is someone actually saying that consciousness DOES play a role in QM? If so, there's not much else I can say that I didn't say in my last post here.
Tiberius, M. Gaspar, Myself and maybe some others were speculating about what little we know about Qm and asking questions even if they may have been rhetorical. How do the particles know that they are being observed and as in the EPR paradox how could the nonlocal particle know that the spin of its partner has been determined or changed. Could it be consciousness? We don't know because we don't really understand but are trying to. To us it is an enigma.
We are not claiming that is is proof of anything or trying to use it to support our mystisism or pet theories.
Tiberius
Jun27-03, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Royce
Tiberius, M. Gaspar, Myself and maybe some others were speculating about what little we know about Qm and asking questions even if they may have been rhetorical. How do the particles know that they are being observed and as in the EPR paradox how could the nonlocal particle know that the spin of its partner has been determined or changed. Could it be consciousness? We don't know because we don't really understand but are trying to. To us it is an enigma.
We are not claiming that is is proof of anything or trying to use it to support our mystisism or pet theories.
Ah, thanks for the update Royce.
As far as "knowing it's been observed" I think that would be, as I outlined originally, that the particle detecting it has to bump into it to do so. Please forgive if there was more to the question I missed before coming back.
The dual proton thingy is a bit more tricky. However, I believe it is much to do about nothing. There's one thought I had about that, that I'd like to share and see what you all think...
Epistemology in science normally says that what is real, for all intents and purposes, is that which can be measured. That's why relativity says that whether or not events are simultaneous is a matter of where you are - there is NO TRUE SIMULTANEOUSNESS apart from the aparent. IOW, there is NO obsolute frame that is the "true" reality. If a supernova goes off 100 light years away, and another one goes off ten years later at 110 light years away, we are not allowed to say "well, these were simultaneous". Instead, for EARTH, we say they happened 10 years apart. So, by strict scientific epistemology, what you see is what is "real".
Now, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to go with a philosophic slant on reality that tries to look at the observations and "figure out" what's really happened, that could be done - but that's not science and it's not going to be compatible once you start trying to figure out scientific theories. So, all of that will fall apart once you give up the epistemology on which it is based. A big part of our problem lies in the fact that we keep switching between relativistic and absolute perspective, and still expect everything to make sense.
If you look at it relativistically, I think you'll find that no faster than light interaction occurs in the dual-proton wave collapse...
For example. We split off the protons. We take one to a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, about 4 light years away. The other we leave in another lab here on earth. We also have some very powerful telescopes that let us look at the other scientists there, who can show us signs and wave at us, and us them.
Now, here on earth, we collapse the wave function of our proton and then look in the telescope. We see that the other scientists are still looking at their proton, waiting for it to collapse!
In fact, we have to wait four years before we can verify that the other proton has collapsed. So, what has actually happened for earth is that we collapsed our proton, and the other proton REALLY DID collapse four years later. According to all observation, NOTHING has travelled faster than light. Even if both protons are here on earth you face the same situation in principle, except the distances difference would be minute beyond detection.
Now, if you want to look at it from a "universal" perspective, then you're already abandoning 20th century science and a LOT of things are going to fall apart in that case.
I have just finished "The Universe in a Nutshell" Hawking used the EPR paradox to realy throw an curve. He has one of the photon get swallowed by a blackhole so that not only the information of the state of that proton or particle was gone but the state of the remaining on could never be determined so it's information was gone too. At least that's the way I read it.
Anyway thanks for the response and the clarification.
Fliption
Jun27-03, 09:34 PM
No Tiberous, I am not claiming that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. What I am saying is that you're claim is also not "THE" correct interpretation of quantum physics. I am saying that everything I read about QM is about trying to understand what it means to say "the observer collapses the wave function". Yes, this sentence is vague and as has been noted, can be interpreted several different ways. But the reason it is worded this way is because this is all we know! To actually define these terms in a more specific, less vague manner (the way you have) implies that we know "how" it works. For example you claim the wave function collapse due to the detecting particle interfering with it. This is an explanation for "how" the collapse works. There are numerous interpretations of QM that try to get at the answer to exactly that question. Yet you have dismissed all of this inquiry and disagreement by claiming it to be "X" as if this were standard knowledge.
I have found some references on the web to some experiments that test this very idea of a physical measurement causing a disturbance that will then collapse the wave function. I'm still looking for my books. It's irritating but they have been stuck in some dusty closet somewhere and laughing at me from afar [:)]. I will keep looking.
I will copy a bit of the text from one site and provide the link where you can read the entire thing yourself. I'm sure from there that you can research any of the experiments, universities or scientists involved.
quote.... (bold emphasis is mine)
"An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state.
Yet even this deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs. ......
(Snip)(snip) please read all this (snip).....
Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.
end quotes....
This statement in bold above is exactly what I was referring to in my first post here. There was no interference by the measurement itself. The only difference that could have caused the collapse was the potential for knowledge. As I said before, a conscious observer need not be present. But if a conscious observer can come by at any time after and calculate the information then the wave function will collapse. The implications for this seem profound to me.
Please, all of you (Les, EH, Tiberous) read through this stuff and let's reconcile it with what your thoughts were.
General page where above quotes came from.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
More info on experiments specifically
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/seedark.html
Another link comparing interpretations of QM based on these types of experiments
http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm
And as for the comments on locality....I think claiming it is a non-issue because everyone is just confused about relativity is absurd. Einstein himself dealt with this issue and of all people I think he would have known of any relativity confusion. I think this comment is evidence of a lack of understanding of QM.
Thankyou Fliption, That is exactly the phenomena I was talking about.
As I told Les I was getting my information from library books so didn't have them on hand to reference them. Iscanned through the first one after reading your post then downloaded to entireky to read later as I will the others.
From what I read, unless it is intentionally vague to mislead people like me, my understand that the observer is the scientist doing the experiement and is an integral part of the experiment and his actions effect the out come of the experiment.
It really blew me away when I read that the observers action can change the results of an experiment that had all ready been completed. That is what I read isn't it?
Profound hardly covers it.
Thanks again Fliption. Gotta go. [zz)]
Les Sleeth
Jun28-03, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Fliption
Please, all of you (Les, EH, Tiberous) read through this stuff and let's reconcile it with what your thoughts were.
Excellent articles, especially the first Scientific American piece. To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think, and it appears from the articles neither does anyone else. So you seem right to say that it is premature for anyone to claim they know THE correct way to look at this aspect of QM.
Personally, I still suspect some physical element having to do with detection is causing it (i.e., rather than consciousness), and that there's something about the wave-particle relationship we don't understand which would answer what it is.
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everthing I've read the observer is a necessary and intragal part of any QM experiment. The pop culture authors I've been reading and quoting or at leasst paraphrasing are Gribbins, Feynman, and such others. We or at least I have never heard of New Agers before this thread. While he named no names we assumed that he was talking about MG and me as we were speculating on QM and consciousness and awareness.
Well, yeah. New-agers do believe that conscious observations is somehow connected with QM (not saying that only New-agers believe this way, just that they do), when, in point of actual fact, QM doesn't require any such thing.
The "observation" that collapses a wave-function is merely the energy interaction that takes place between all physical things. Remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? In many pop culture science books it is explained that a particle's exact position cannot be known, because it requires energy to make an observation (of position), and the energy changes the position.
This is obviously an over-simplification, but it gives the reader a basic understanding of Uncertainty.
Notice, however, that nowhere in that explanation of Uncertainty, do I say that one needs to be trying to "observe" the phenomenon, merely that the energy needs to be exchanged.
P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am. My glasses are broken and I'm seeing double (not to mention the pounding headache that almost kept me from the PFs for the second day in a row).
Fliption, some of the information in that site that you quoted is rather misleading. You see, the observation of particle's state does require intervention, but what they fail to bring up (at least in the first site, I haven't been able to look at the other two) is that that is the whole point. The energy that must be exchanged, in order to make a measurement, alters the state of the particle. However, one needn't be trying to measure the particle, in order to change it, as we are always interacting with these particles - just not as strongly (concentrated) as when we are trying to observe them.
Say you try to observe a single electron. In order to do this, you must concentrate a beam of "light" (photons) on it. But the smaller something is, the more energy (photons) you must use to see it, and thus the greater a bombardment you are making on the electron. Conclusion: The harder you try to see it, the more energy you concentrate on it, and thus the more you change it.
Fliption
Jun28-03, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Fliption, some of the information in that site that you quoted is rather misleading.
Mentat I would suggest you read it one more time. Very carefully. Look for how they performed the experiment without interfering with the particle.
And your previous post is just doing the same thing that Tiberous is doing. I haven't seen this opinion much at all in my readings. I can see how it can be mis-interpreted to mean what you think it means. But thats just because the words are vague. Just like the site points out.
Fliption
Jun28-03, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Excellent articles, especially the first Scientific American piece. To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think, and it appears from the articles neither does anyone else. So you seem right to say that it is premature for anyone to claim they know THE correct way to look at this aspect of QM.
Personally, I still suspect some physical element having to do with detection is causing it (i.e., rather than consciousness), and that there's something about the wave-particle relationship we don't understand which would answer what it is.
Perhaps you are right. There are interpretations of Qm that blame all the strangeness on hidden variables. Things that we just aren't aware of yet. Bohm's theory falls into this category.
It is clear there is much more for me to learn in this area but if I understand this correctly it almost seems like Alexander is right(kinda)! It appears that nature sits in a state of potential and probability waiting for the variables of the equations to be filled in. Once all but one of the variables are forced into a position then the one unknown left also must collapse as well. But as long as there are 2 unknowns in the equation then the "answer" is not set. It is waiting for one of the variables to be plugged in and then the remaining unknown is automatically set. Like the article says, it is the potential for knowledge that changed. But the odd thing about all this is that a conscious being is the only one who can define whether a variable is known or unknown. So I'm still trying to figure that out. Any thoughts????
Don't take what I'm saying as gospel. I'm just sharing my thoughts. I could be completely wrong and I'm sure as I learn more I will probably change my opinion. I don't think any of this says that a conscious observer must be present and therefore nothing exists without a conscious observer. These studies seem to throw that idea out. But there does seem to be something odd going on related to the potential knowledge. And knowledge is defined by conscious beings.
Fliption
Jun28-03, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Royce
It really blew me away when I read that the observers action can change the results of an experiment that had all ready been completed. That is what I read isn't it?
Yes, you read correctly. Strange ain't it?
I had a lot of trouble trying to understand what the big deal about Schrodingers Cat Thought Experiment. It seemed totally redicules that an actual cat could be thought of being in the superstate of being alive and dead at the same time and that anybody with any sense could waste any time on it or give any credence to it. This is one of the reasons that I knew that is was far more complicated and bizzar than Tiberius, and now Mentat, was saying. It is completely out of human experience and can not be explained by any simple common sense method just as the authors I've read say. As the man said ,"Yeah, its weird, but is it weird enough."
My brain is trying to form a mobius loop inside my head trying to understand it.
The EPR paradox was developed by Einstein and the others to show that QM was incomplete thinking I guess that there must be hidden variables (unkowns) that would explain it and make it more sensable.
but fifty years later they still haven't got a real good handle on it.
Bell's inequities and Quantum field theory iis supposed to solve or do away with the EPR paradox but I haven't gotten that far yet.
how about this. the true state of an elementary particle is indeterminancy and it is only when it interacts with a macroscopic object composed of billions of elementary particles do we see the familiar determinant pattern. somewhat like though physical laws are time independant, time always goes one way. ever heard of the quantum decoherence principle? did not understand your experiment flipiton. can you explain briefly what its results imply?
Fliption
Jun29-03, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by sage
did not understand your experiment flipiton. can you explain briefly what its results imply?
I can try. It appears that the experiment is trying to rule out exactly what you have said causes the wave function collapse. The experiment is set up in a such a way that the particle in question was not interfered with. Even though there is no interaction the wave function still collapses once it is possible for us to "know" which path it has taken. It appears this knowledge came about by comparing the travel time to a twin particle; the measurement was made indirectly.
The implications seem profound to me. It seems that it is the ability to know that causes the collapse. I'm afraid more thinking will be required on my part to understand exactly what this means.
I've never been able to understand why QM doesn't get more press here. Now I understand why. If everyone believed that the wave function collapses when there is a physical interaction then there's nothing special about that at all. But in light of all this info, to believe that seems like wishful thinking.
Originally posted by Fliption
Mentat I would suggest you read it one more time. Very carefully. Look for how they performed the experiment without interfering with the particle.
I really do apologize, but I can't. My brother broke my glasses, and it's all I can do to respond to a few threads on the PFs. Could you perhaps give an explanation of the experiment here, please? Also, you said the performed the experiment without interfering with the particle? That directly violates the Uncertainty principle.
And your previous post is just doing the same thing that Tiberous is doing. I haven't seen this opinion much at all in my readings. I can see how it can be mis-interpreted to mean what you think it means. But thats just because the words are vague. Just like the site points out.
Well, my understanding of Quantum Mechanics is based on annotated mathematical essays (on several different sites). Granted, I can't understand all of the mathematics - that's why I required that they be annotated - but I only read the pop-culture books after having understood (to some degree) the mathematical principles. I'm sure there are other members that are more qualified to give a detailed, mathematical, explanation of QM, but I was trying to give a layman explanation.
P.S. Forgive me if there are a lot of typos, or if I'm not clear in my speech. As I said, my glasses are broken, and I'm seeing double-ish.
Originally posted by Fliption
Perhaps you are right. There are interpretations of Qm that blame all the strangeness on hidden variables. Things that we just aren't aware of yet. Bohm's theory falls into this category.
It is clear there is much more for me to learn in this area but if I understand this correctly it almost seems like Alexander is right(kinda)! It appears that nature sits in a state of potential and probability waiting for the variables of the equations to be filled in. Once all but one of the variables are forced into a position then the one unknown left also must collapse as well. But as long as there are 2 unknowns in the equation then the "answer" is not set. It is waiting for one of the variables to be plugged in and then the remaining unknown is automatically set. Like the article says, it is the potential for knowledge that changed. But the odd thing about all this is that a conscious being is the only one who can define whether a variable is known or unknown. So I'm still trying to figure that out. Any thoughts????
Don't take what I'm saying as gospel. I'm just sharing my thoughts. I could be completely wrong and I'm sure as I learn more I will probably change my opinion. I don't think any of this says that a conscious observer must be present and therefore nothing exists without a conscious observer. These studies seem to throw that idea out. But there does seem to be something odd going on related to the potential knowledge. And knowledge is defined by conscious beings.
Exactly, this is the problem that Tiberius was trying to point out: people like to think that consciousness is related to the collapse of a wave-function by "observation". This cannot be the case, as consciousness must be a product of physical interactions of particles in the brain. You see, QM is a reductionist theory in many ways - thus it doesn't recognize the difference between a human and a rock. They are all collections of exactly the same things (fundamental particles (strings, I hope [:)])). So a human should be no different an "observer" than a rock, or a piece of ice, or any other collection of the same fundamental particles.
IOW, Quantum Mechanics is a theory of particles. It deals with the energetic interactions of these particles. All physical things are made up of these same particles, and no one collection of them is "special" or even recognizably different at the subatomic level. Thus, to say that conscious beings (which are collections of the same particles as every inanimate thing) have some special interaction with particles at the subatomic level, is obviously against the basic principle of Quantum Mechanics.
The experiment is set up in a such a way that the particle in question was not interfered with
impossible. to gain any information about an elementary particle we need a macroscopic detector at some level or the other because the result must be seen by human eyes. so at some level an interaction between the elementary quantum particles and a macroscopic assembly must occur. the quantum decoherence principle asserts that it is this interaction that irreversibly changes the indeterminancy of the quantum world to the determinant states of the macroscopic world we are familiar with by virtue of statistical considerations alone. that's what i read anyway.
Fliption
Jun30-03, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
[B]I really do apologize, but I can't. My brother broke my glasses, and it's all I can do to respond to a few threads on the PFs. Could you perhaps give an explanation of the experiment here, please?
I really think we should wait until you have your glasses back and can read through all the material. As I said in my first post, I can't begin to understand all the technical details of how this works. But I can understand the intent and the results. I think if I tried to summarize "how" the experiments work I wouldn't do it justice and you would then attempt to pick apart a laymans summary.
Also, you said the performed the experiment without interfering with the particle? That directly violates the Uncertainty principle.
I would argue that it contradicts your understanding of the Uncertainty Principal. But it does not contradict the Uncertainty Principle. This really has been the point all along. The site discusses how this very piece of Qm has been mis-interpreted not by new agers...but by many scientists.
Fliption
Jun30-03, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly, this is the problem that Tiberius was trying to point out: people like to think that consciousness is related to the collapse of a wave-function by "observation". This cannot be the case, as consciousness must be a product of physical interactions of particles in the brain. You see, QM is a reductionist theory in many ways - thus it doesn't recognize the difference between a human and a rock. They are all collections of exactly the same things (fundamental particles (strings, I hope [:)])). So a human should be no different an "observer" than a rock, or a piece of ice, or any other collection of the same fundamental particles.
I did not say that QM had nothing to do with consciousness. I said that a conscious being does not need to be present and observing in real time the experiment in order for the wave function to collapse. I have also said that there does appear to be a connection to "knowledge" and that this knowledge is defined by conscious beings. So it appears there is a connection but it seems much more fundamental to nature and maybe not quite as sexy [:)]
Fliption
Jun30-03, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by sage
impossible. to gain any information about an elementary particle we need a macroscopic detector at some level or the other because the result must be seen by human eyes. so at some level an interaction between the elementary quantum particles and a macroscopic assembly must occur. the quantum decoherence principle asserts that it is this interaction that irreversibly changes the indeterminancy of the quantum world to the determinant states of the macroscopic world we are familiar with by virtue of statistical considerations alone. that's what i read anyway.
Did you read the links Sage? You really should and then try to reconcile the information with other things that you've read. The experiments acquired information about a particle indirectly. There was no direct measurement made on the particle for this disturbance to occur. I really think you guys ought to read this stuff and then respond.
Tiberius
Jun30-03, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
No Tiberous, I am not claiming that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. What I am saying is that you're claim is also not "THE" correct interpretation of quantum physics. I am saying that everything I read about QM is about trying to understand what it means to say "the observer collapses the wave function". Yes, this sentence is vague and as has been noted, can be interpreted several different ways. But the reason it is worded this way is because this is all we know! To actually define these terms in a more specific, less vague manner (the way you have) implies that we know "how" it works. For example you claim the wave function collapse due to the detecting particle interfering with it. This is an explanation for "how" the collapse works. There are numerous interpretations of QM that try to get at the answer to exactly that question. Yet you have dismissed all of this inquiry and disagreement by claiming it to be "X" as if this were standard knowledge.
I never said there weren't all sorts of things in QM that are still being explored. But it IS standard knowledge that consciousness, awareness, knowledge, and intelligent beings have nothing to do with why wave functions collapse or determining reality in the sense that New Agers ascribe (other than their direct physical actions causeing such).
I have found some references on the web to some experiments that test this very idea of a physical measurement causing a disturbance that will then collapse the wave function. I'm still looking for my books. It's irritating but they have been stuck in some dusty closet somewhere and laughing at me from afar [:)]. I will keep looking.
I will copy a bit of the text from one site and provide the link where you can read the entire thing yourself. I'm sure from there that you can research any of the experiments, universities or scientists involved.
quote.... (bold emphasis is mine)
"An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state.
Yet even this [b]deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs. ......
(Snip)(snip) please read all this (snip).....
Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.
end quotes....
This statement in bold above is exactly what I was referring to in my first post here. There was no interference by the measurement itself.
Yes, there was. Others have tried to explain this after you posted this and before my post here, and you've shrugged it off. I'll try again... The interference does not have to come from the person doing the observing. Interference comes from other particles all over the place all the time. Sure, a detector shooting a particle at another will disturb it, but if you're NOT detecting, a random particle hitting it will do exactly the same thing. In these experiments, EVEN if they deduce later the properties of the particle, they could not even FORM such a deduction in the first place unless that particle had been affected by others SOMEWHERE in the line. This is exactly what I mean when I say consciousness is not required.
The only difference that could have caused the collapse was the potential for knowledge.
In a way, that's correct. That's because ONLY once the particle has bumped into and affected other particles is there a "potential for knowledge" - but that is incidental.
As I said before, a conscious observer need not be present. But if a conscious observer can come by at any time after and calculate the information then the wave function will collapse...
And what is it that makes the thing "calculatable"? It is the fact that it has been affected by other particles. YES, even if only indirect.
The implications for this seem profound to me.
Only when you think of it causally backwards.
...And as for the comments on locality....I think claiming it is a non-issue because everyone is just confused about relativity is absurd. Einstein himself dealt with this issue and of all people I think he would have known of any relativity confusion. I think this comment is evidence of a lack of understanding of QM.
No, you're comment is evidence you don't understand what I was saying. These particular comments were not about QM per se so it is logically impossible that anything in them could be "evidence of a lack of understanding of QM". These comments were a generally new concern (as far as I know) given aspects of relativity. Therefore, the fact that they are not part of QM, and I clearly implied this, indicates an understanding of QM. Einstein DID object to nonlocality, but I'm not certain if the reasons were along the lines I brought up or not. I suspect, given that they are based on relativity, that it was something like this. In any case, would you care to actually comment on the idea itself this time? If not, it was just a passing idea so no big deal.
I'm not sure what you want us to say here? Is "yes! Consciousness plays a role in determining reality!" the only "right" answer for you? If so, good luck, because there's no evidence of that, despite pop book hype.
Fliption
Jun30-03, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
[B]But it IS standard knowledge that consciousness, awareness, knowledge, and intelligent beings have nothing to do with why wave functions collapse or determining reality in the sense that New Agers ascribe (other than their direct physical actions causeing such).
No it is not standard knowledge. I have admitted to having much to learn in this area, but if anything is clear, it is that what you're saying is not true. Go to the third link that I provided earlier and go to the bottom of the page. Since you don't have time to read the articles I'll just point. At the bottom of that page is a setup of X vs Y on THIS EXACT ISSUE. What is the nature of the collapse? Please read it and say it is all bunk. Do something. Don't just ignore the information or claim it to be consistent with your view without specifically reconciling the apparent differences.
As I said I will not claim I know the truth on this. I'm asking for responses on what I'm reading and I do have an open mind throughout. I couldn't care less whether consciousness is involved in it. All I ask is that you "reconcile" your view with what I'm reading. Just claiming it is so, will not and should not convince anyone.
Yes, there was. Others have tried to explain this after you posted this and before my post here, and you've shrugged it off. I'll try again... The interference does not have to come from the person doing the observing. Interference comes from other particles all over the place all the time. Sure, a detector shooting a particle at another will disturb it, but if you're NOT detecting, a random particle hitting it will do exactly the same thing. In these experiments, EVEN if they deduce later the properties of the particle, they could not even FORM such a deduction in the first place unless that particle had been affected by others SOMEWHERE in the line. This is exactly what I mean when I say consciousness is not required.
All of this loses me. I don't see how it's relevant to the real issue. When I say "Collapse" I'm talking about a particle choosing a path as opposed to moving through all paths and ending in an interference pattern. The only thing that changes whether a pattern collapse into one path or stays in limbo is if a measurement has taken place. Yes, a measurement can mean that some physical disturbance has occured. But this is no different than if a measurement has not occurred. The only difference is that a measurement provides "knowledge". If I am missing something here please someone let me know what it is. But please do not respond to this request without acknowledging the information in the links I've provided.
In a way, that's correct. That's because ONLY once the particle has bumped into and affected other particles is there a "potential for knowledge" - but that is incidental.
Then why do some particles not collapse?
No, you're comment is evidence you don't understand what I was saying. These particular comments were not about QM per se so it is logically impossible that anything in them could be "evidence of a lack of understanding of QM". These comments were a generally new concern (as far as I know) given aspects of relativity. Therefore, the fact that they are not part of QM, and I clearly implied this, indicates an understanding of QM. Einstein DID object to nonlocality, but I'm not certain if the reasons were along the lines I brought up or not. I suspect, given that they are based on relativity, that it was something like this. In any case, would you care to actually comment on the idea itself this time? If not, it was just a passing idea so no big deal.
I think you should let it pass then. I don't understand what you mean in the first half of your paragraph. You're claiming that an issue in QM isn't really an issue and you base that on knowledge of Relativity? I don't get it.
And Einsteins objection to non-locality was purely intuitive I believe. I'm pretty sure he didn't have an argument resembling anything like this. At least I've never seen it.
I'm not sure what you want us to say here? Is "yes! Consciousness plays a role in determining reality!" the only "right" answer for you? If so, good luck, because there's no evidence of that, despite pop book hype.
It is paragraphs like this that make me more confident in my insistence for more clarification. As in the original post of this thread, there is bias all in this. As I said earlier, I couldn't care less what the answer is. All I'm asking for is a good discussion that links your opinion to the articles at hand. I don't mean any disrespect. If I've misunderstood you I apologize. Perhaps you didn't know what I was expecting. What I would like is for someone with this view that you have to reconcile it to what appears to be contradicting information.
M. Gaspar
Jun30-03, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
I never said there weren't all sorts of things in QM that are still being explored. But it IS standard knowledge that consciousness, awareness, knowledge, and intelligent beings have nothing to do with why wave functions collapse...
Yes, there are those of us who accepted this the moment it was EXPLAINED...
...or determining reality in the sense that New Agers ascribe (other than their direct physical actions causeing such).
Not being a "New Ager", I'm not sure what "sense" you're speaking of. I will only say there are those of us (whoever "we" may be) who are toying with the POSSIBILITY that the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" upon which "intention" ACTS UPON the inherent "component" of "randomness" as if upon a bunch of tiny "lynchpins" to CAUSE certain potentialities to come into being, while others do not.
Don't ask me to "prove" it ... and I won't ask you to "believe" it.
I'm not sure what you want us to say here? Is "yes! Consciousness plays a role in determining reality!" the only "right" answer for you? If so, good luck, because there's no evidence of that, despite pop book hype.
Forget the books! Start looking a your life experiences!
Tiberius
Jul1-03, 12:23 PM
PART I of II
Very well, as you requested, I have read one of your links (Quantum Philosophy, by John Horgan). I’ll try to get to the others later...
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
As I expected, it’s nothing I haven’t read elsewhere. Not that I know a lot about QM beyond the conceptual (as I said, I’m no physicist), but I have read a lot of the laymen’s stuff and a little of the math. However, I’ll address some things about this article, as you asked...
RELATIVITY AND NON-LOCALITY
But because of their common origin, the properties of the protons are tightly correlated, or "entangled." For example, through simple conservation of momentum, one knows that if one proton heads north, the other must have headed south. Consequently, measuring the momentum of one proton instantaneously determines the momentum of the other proton- even if it has travelled to the opposite end of the universe. Einstein said that this "spooky action at a distance" was incompatible with any "realistic" model of reality; all the properties of each proton must be fixed from the moment they first fly apart.
This is what I referred to before - but no measurement could ever be made that would show faster than light action. The fact that we can “figure out” that the wave functions collapsed simultaneously is irrelevant. We can also figure out that two astronomical events were simultaneous, even though relativity itself says that the definition of simultaneousness depends on relevant the position of the observer. Everyone agrees Einstein was wrong about this, I am merely pointing out WHY he was wrong, and the inconsistency of the logical paradigms used in each case.
Unfortunately, the EPR effect does not provide a loophole in the theory of relativity, which prohibits communications faster than light, since each isolated observer of a correlated particle sees only an apparently random fluctuation of properties.
This is what I was talking about, and why relativity still holds together. Einstein’s objection to non-locality WAS based on his brainchild (relativity) - and this is the little fact, that holds both theories to still be viable in their own sense, that he was missing. Now, on the macro scale, relativity still rules supreme. Therefore, if you’re going to say scientifically and empirically meaningful things, then they will have to be along the epistemological lines of relativity. And, by those standards, NO action at a distance can be said to be taking place. It is only when you use (or misuse) quantum methodology in everyday thinking (macro thinking) that a problem arises.
SURROUNDING PARTICLES COUNT AS “OBSERVATION”
When I said that a “potential for knowledge” existed only because the particle has bumped into and affected other particles, you asked, “Then why do some particles not collapse?” The answer seems to me to be that most of these uncollapsed waves are in instances where an experiment has specifically been set up to isolate the particle from its surroundings, longer than would normally be the case. To quote the article...
Various resolutions to the paradox have been suggested. Wojciech H. Zurek, a theorist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, contends that as a quantum phenomenon propagates, its interaction with the environment inevitably causes its superposed states to become distinguishable and thus to collapse into a single state. Mandel of the University of Rochester thinks this view is supported by his experiment, in which the mere potential for knowledge of a photon's path destroyed its interference pattern. After all, one can easily learn whether the cat has been fed-say, by making the box transparent-without actually disturbing it.
Exactly what I said - the interaction with the environment causes the collapse - irrespective of observation. I note that Zurek even made the same connection as myself to the fact that the “potential” for knowledge collapsing the function (as opposed to knowledge itself) is an indicator that consciousness and awareness is not involved.
COLLAPSE OF UNDISTURBED PHENOMENON
The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable,"
There seems to be a logical problem here. If they don’t actually measure something, how would they know that the other wave didn’t collapse? On the other hand, if they did measure it - then they measured it and it would collapse. In other words, you can’t logically every really say, “the threat of measuring it makes the wave function collapse” because you can’t ever measure something without measuring it.
Secondly, there is something to be said here about these lenses they are using. I’m not sure how much you know about transparency, but a few years ago I was interested in “what makes things transparent” so I did a little research into it. From my understanding, when you look out a window and see a tree, you’re eyes are not actually catching the photons that left the tree. Instead, what happens is that a photon strikes an atom on the outer edge of the glass. That atom then has an excess of energy and this causes a chain reaction. Finally, on the opposite side of the glass, that last atom expels a photon of the same (or nearly the same) properties. So, when you look through something transparent, you’re getting a facsimile of the image, as recreated through chain reaction of the glass’ atoms. This being the case, it seems to me that the very act of using lenses (even the best of lenses) is interfering with the photons in some way. What the exact effect of this interference is I have no idea, but it seems to endanger assumptions about wave function collapse at the very least.
Then the workers added a device to the interferometer that shifted the polarization of one set of photons by 90 degrees- If one thinks of a ray of light as an arrow, polarization is the orientation of the plane of the arrowhead. One of the peculiarities of polarization is that it is a strictly binary property; photons are always polarized either vertically or horizontally.The altered polarization served as a tag; by putting polarization detectors in front of the simple light detectors at the end of the routes, one could determine which route each photon had taken. The two paths were no longer indistinguishable, and so the interference pattern disappeared.
Finally, Chiao's group inserted two devices that admitted only light polarized in one direction just in front of the detectors. The paths were indistinguishable again, and the interference pattern reappeared. Unlike Humpty-Dumpty, a collapsed wave function can be put back together again.
The problem here seems to be that the “beam” of light is being objectified. But these are not the same photons from one second to the next. Imagine if there were a rushing pipe of water, and you stuck an instrument in there to measure the purity of the water. Then, while you were measuring, I pored a little oil into the water stream, upstream from your instrument. You would see the purity level drop. Then, when I stopped poring, you’d see the purity level rise again. What they are doing is equivalent to focusing on the “stream” as a single object, and then saying that the purity level of the water went down, and then magically popped back up again simply by me stopping my poring. In other words, when they changed back the experiment to the previous setting, and the wave function reappeared, this was a new wave function, for a new series of photons. These were not the same photons being measured a second earlier. They are focusing on the beam and not the photons that make it up. Perhaps, since I’m no physicist, there’s something I’m missing here, but that’s the impression I get from reading this.
Tiberius
Jul1-03, 12:23 PM
PART II of II
SKEPTICISM AND CERTAIN HYPOTHESES
You claim that “there is bias” in all of this. Well, in a way that’s correct - but it depends on what your definition of bias is. There is justification for favoring some hypotheses over others. Occam’s razor dictates that we favor explanations with the fewest number of assumptions. Rationality dictates that the degree of acceptance for a proposition be proportionate to the degree of supporting evidence for that proposition.
The idea that consciousness plays a roll in determining the activities or states of unconnected particles is not based on any other established facts. It is not based on any contending hypothetical construct of reality. It is undeniably “far fetched” and it is not the “straightest line between two dots”. In fact, out of all of the contending explanations, it is the least likely at this point. Therefore, the level of evidence necessary to justify serious consideration of that idea is much higher than the needed evidence to justify more mundane alternative hypotheses. Scientists don’t mention this sort of thing often because they don’t like to inflame for no reason, but the fact is that the consciousness idea was not even thought of via normal means, but rather, is a product of reporter hype, misconstrued poetic phrasing, and the promotion of new age zealots. Even the far fetched Copenhagen hypothesis was generated by a scientist actually in the field, yet it also should be viewed with some skepticism.
The consciousness claim is an “extraordinary” claim and, while the results of QM experiments are extraordinary, there is no extraordinary evidence supporting the consciousness claim. So, it is perfectly justified to be biased against the “consciousness” issue. But new information comes out all the time and, should such extraordinary evidence come out that directly supports this pop-idea, then that attitude should change. Until then, accusations of “bias” are irrelevant.
Although the [Copenhagen multiple worlds hypothesis] was long dismissed as more science fiction than science, it has been revived in a modified form by Murray Gell-Mann of the California Institute of Technology and James B. Hartle of the University of California at Santa Barbara.They call their version the many-histories interpretation and emphasize that the histories are "potentialities" rather than physical actualities. Gell-Mann has reportedly predicted that this view will dominate the field by the end of the century.
An intriguing alternative, called the many-minds view, has been advanced by David Z. Albert, a physicist-turned- philosopher at Columbia University, and Barry Loewer, a philosopher from Rutgers University. Each observer, they explain, or " sentient physical system," is associated with an infinite set of minds, which experience different possible outcomes of any quantum measurement. The array of choices embedded in the Schrödinger equation corresponds to the myriad experiences undergone by these minds rather than to an infinitude of universes. The concept may sound far-fetched, but it is no more radical, Albert argues, than the many histories theory or even the Copenhagen interpretation itself.
This illustrates the inability of Albert (and likely the writer of this article) to distinguish between what is more or less extraneous and how to apply Occam’s razor properly. Certainly, the Copenhagen interpretation is far fetched, but it is the direct response to a very particular problem in QM. The idea that “sentient physical systems” would have special abilities to alter or affect unconnected particle properties, requires first a leap to conclude that there IS something unproven going on that affects these things at a distance. This would place it about even with Copenhagen. But then, there is an additional jump that requires us to suppose that there is something unusual and additional to brain particles, than those of other blocks of particles of the same mass. This idea only seems feasible because there is already an existing cultural folklore about “souls” and “spirits”. But, scientifically, there is nothing inherently different about “sentient” structures on a particle level - sentience, as far as science is concerned, is merely the ability to process very complex information. “Many-minds” requires more assumption and IS far more radical than Copenhagen.
NATURE OF LAYMEN REPORTS
When reading this article, one must note that it is, after all, a popular report - not a scientific paper. Let’s take something far simpler, like Star Wars. Often, when you read reporters’ stories about the latest star wars flick, they seem pretty accurate to most people. The real hardcore fans (like myself) however, will often notice all sorts of inaccuracies and distortions. Often, they will confuse who’s a good guy and who’s not, get minor details wrong, give the impression of one thing when the exact plot is the opposite, and so on. Some of these are due to the reporters lack of info about star wars, but others you can plainly see are the result of the reporter twisting the exact meaning a little, just to get the “feel” and “personality” of the article that s/he’s looking for (artistic license, if you will). When reporters and pop-writers try to treat the much more complex issues of real science this way, the effect becomes more severe. An example from the article...
Actually Wheeler says 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 that "to be is to be perceived."
Although it sounds poetic and nice to editors, this is simply sloppy when it comes to accuracy. The use of a quote containing the word “perceive” was a poor choice. The word “perceive” necessarily conjures up the impression in the reader’s mind of consciousness, and not at all what is meant when most scientists discuss measurement. Bishop Berkeley’s quote may make the article poignant, but no less inaccurate - and debates like the one in this thread are the result.
If that doesn't work, there is always Aharonov's time machine.The machine, which is based not only on quantum theory but also on general relativity, is a massive sphere that can rapidly expand or contract Einstein's theory predicts that time will speed up for an occupant of the sphere as it expands and gravity becomes proportionately weaker, and time will slow down as the sphere contracts. If the machine and its occupant can be induced into a superposition of states corresponding to different sizes and so different rates of time, Aharonov says, they may "tunnel" into the future.The occupant can then disembark, ask physicists of the future to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics and then bring the answers-assuming there are any-back to the present. Until then, like Plato's benighted cave dwellers, we can only stare at the shadows of quanta flickering on the walls of our cave and wonder what they mean.
This is another example of the nature of such articles. Horgan wraps up by tagging on the most extreme, unproven, and far fetched concepts he can find. While there is some mention of them being such, no real distinction is made by the writer and no words of caution as to acceptance are offered along with them. The overall impression is left on the lay reader that far exceeds what is really rational to expect at this point. While such may be possible in far fetched speculation, it does not represent the serious work being done in QM. Therefore, one must take articles such as these in the light they are presented - i.e. “with a grain of salt”.
I have no doubt that all sorts of wondrous and unexpected things await discovery in the future, but for lay people such as ourselves to take these simplistically explained reports and start attaching our ancient fantasies to them is unjustified. That was the point of my original post and this article unwittingly supports that assertion.
Tiberius
Jul1-03, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yes, there are those of us who accepted this the moment it was EXPLAINED...
Hi Gasper, It seems like you and Fliption have different positions, and these responses were to him so I'm not sure they apply to you. I'll try to respond though.
Not being a "New Ager", I'm not sure what "sense" you're speaking of. I will only say there are those of us (whoever "we" may be) who are toying with the POSSIBILITY that the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" upon which "intention" ACTS UPON the inherent "component" of "randomness" as if upon a bunch of tiny "lynchpins" to CAUSE certain potentialities to come into being, while others do not.
Don't ask me to "prove" it ... and I won't ask you to "believe" it.
Ok, fair enough. But what exactly do you mean "toying with the idea"? You mean talking about how cool it would be with others? I'm up for that. If you're talking about trying to propose it's true and getting upset when people say there's no evidence for it, then that's something different.
Forget the books! Start looking a your life experiences!
I don't really conduct quantum experiences myself, so I'm not sure what life experiences you're referring to.
Originally posted by Fliption
I really think we should wait until you have your glasses back and can read through all the material. As I said in my first post, I can't begin to understand all the technical details of how this works. But I can understand the intent and the results. I think if I tried to summarize "how" the experiments work I wouldn't do it justice and you would then attempt to pick apart a laymans summary.
Fair enough. I just replaced the frame of my glasses, so I can try to look the sites over myself soon.
I would argue that it contradicts your understanding of the Uncertainty Principal. But it does not contradict the Uncertainty Principle. This really has been the point all along. The site discusses how this very piece of Qm has been mis-interpreted not by new agers...but by many scientists.
The fundamental postulation of the HUP - that which causes it to exist in the first place - is that you cannot observer something without changing it. This is taught in every Quantum Physics textbook that I've ever read (and I've read quite a bit), and it is beyond argument. You may, of course, disagree with the principle, but it is nevertheless the central principle of Uncertainty, and really of QM altogether.
Originally posted by Fliption
I did not say that QM had nothing to do with consciousness. I said that a conscious being does not need to be present and observing in real time the experiment in order for the wave function to collapse. I have also said that there does appear to be a connection to "knowledge" and that this knowledge is defined by conscious beings. So it appears there is a connection but it seems much more fundamental to nature and maybe not quite as sexy [:)]
You are still missing my point. Knowledge cannot possibly influence a particle, because knowledge must be had by conscious beings, and conscious beings are no different from other objects at the subatomic level.
Fliption,
I don't understand the purpose of this experiment. If they measure the path of the idler photons, then they change them - obviously, since HUP states that you cannot measure something without changing it. However, they somehow related that to our having knowledge of it's path. This is not at all true, it's our measuring of it's path that causes a disruption (please remember that you cannot see something unless many photons bounce off of it, and into your eye).
Please explain where my misunderstanding lies.
Hmm...
I think the photons bouncing off it is a bad example...
IIRC, from the way it is derived, HUP is not refering to the experimental practicalities of measuration - ie. it isn't saying it's because the do the experiments wrong, it is saying that the lack of an absolute position and momentum is a fundamental property of reality on the quantum scale.
M. Gaspar
Jul1-03, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
...Knowledge cannot possibly influence a particle, because knowledge must be had by conscious beings
...unless the particle itself has a "speck" of consciousness.
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...unless the particle itself has a "speck" of consciousness.
but that would prove mentat's comment that if every particle had conciousness, than the bigger the brain the larger the concious. this isn't neccessarily true.
M. Gaspar
Jul1-03, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by maximus
but that would prove mentat's comment that if every particle had conciousness, than the bigger the brain the larger the concious. this isn't neccessarily true.
Right, he's wrong (IMO)...
I'm not in the mood to explain it now, but the consciousness of a larger, complex system is NOT the collective consciousness of all of the system's parts. Thus, it is an error to say that the more parts (particles) the more consciousness.
Consciousness is not a "mass" but a "network" (IMO)...most of which extends OUTSIDE of the "host" particle/system...and is connected to "similar" particles/systems and, actually, everything else.
This is how the exchange of information might take place.
________________________________________________
The above, of course, is PURE SPECULATION on my part,
so ignore my tone of certainty.
And perhaps I should make the sentence prior to this one my revised "signature".
Fliption
Jul1-03, 10:49 PM
Thank you for this response.
Originally posted by Tiberius
RELATIVITY AND NON-LOCALITY
This is what I was talking about, and why relativity still holds together. Einstein’s objection to non-locality WAS based on his brainchild (relativity) - and this is the little fact, that holds both theories to still be viable in their own sense, that he was missing. Now, on the macro scale, relativity still rules supreme. Therefore, if you’re going to say scientifically and empirically meaningful things, then they will have to be along the epistemological lines of relativity. And, by those standards, NO action at a distance can be said to be taking place. It is only when you use (or misuse) quantum methodology in everyday thinking (macro thinking) that a problem arises.
To be honest I originally thought you were disagreeing with nonlocality. Now I'm not so sure what you're saying. Everything you've said I agree with (except for the part where Relativity is Supreme...don't know how this is determined) But it isn't really the area that this thread was talking about, so I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the rest of the discussion. So, for now, let's not dwell on this.
SURROUNDING PARTICLES COUNT AS “OBSERVATION”
When I said that a “potential for knowledge” existed only because the particle has bumped into and affected other particles, you asked, “Then why do some particles not collapse?” The answer seems to me to be that most of these uncollapsed waves are in instances where an experiment has specifically been set up to isolate the particle from its surroundings, longer than would normally be the case. To quote the article...
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Various resolutions to the paradox have been suggested. jciech . Zurek, a theorist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, contends that as a quantum phenomenon propagates, its interaction with the environment inevitably causes its superposed states to become distinguishable and thus to collapse into a single state. Mandel of the University of Rochester thinks this view is supported by his experiment, in which the mere potential for knowledge of a photon's path destroyed its interference pattern. After all, one can easily learn whether the cat has been fed-say, by making the box transparent-without actually disturbing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Exactly what I said - the interaction with the environment causes the collapse - irrespective of observation. I note that Zurek even made the same connection as myself to the fact that the “potential” for knowledge collapsing the function (as opposed to knowledge itself) is an indicator that consciousness and awareness is not involved.
First of all Zurek didn't make that observation, Mandell did. And I don't disagree with any of it. But I don't think you understand what the point of this comment is. These experiments have shown that an interference pattern can be eliminated and the wave function collapsed simply by changing the way the experiment is set up. Therefore it is a no brainer that environmental changes cause the wave function to collapse. Mandel agrees with Zurek here. But the experiments show that only environmental changes that affect knowledge will cause the collapse. This is what I've been trying to say all along. Let's imagine a man with an ax chopping wood. What causes the wood to split? You are saying the ax does. And I am saying that of course the ax does but only when a man picks it up and swings it.
COLLAPSE OF UNDISTURBED PHENOMENON
There seems to be a logical problem here. If they don’t actually measure something, how would they know that the other wave didn’t collapse? In other words, you can’t logically every really say, “the threat of measuring it makes the wave function collapse” because you can’t ever measure something without measuring it.
Read the experiment again. What it's saying is that there is a group of photons that will change from interference pattern to real partcles with no direct disturbance to them at all. The change happens on the "other side" of the experiment. Once that change is made, a calculation can be made to then calculate the position of the "untouched" photons. And the result is that the untouched photons will no longer produce an interference pattern.
Don't get hung up on the word "measurement" which conjures up imagines of someone putting a tape measure on an object and "affecting it". In this experiment data is always being gathered. Even when the interference pattern is present, the data for arrival times is still being captured. It is only when those numbers can be used in a calculation in conjunction with numbers from the "other side" of the experiment that the interference pattern disappears. The "only" difference is the "potential for knowledge". The environmental conditions directly impacting these photons is held constant.
Secondly, there is something to be said here about these lenses they are using. This being the case, it seems to me that the very act of using lenses (even the best of lenses) is interfering with the photons in some way.
heh. Well maybe you can write this opinion up and send it in. Considering usage of these devices is the common method for testing QM, I'm sure you'd really spin some heads with this one. Who knows? You might win the peace prize!
Fortunately for the QM scientists, it won't matter to the experiments. Whether or not these lenses affect the photons or not is irrelevant to the results. I don't see how you can not see this if you truly understand the experiments. The experiments have shown that the only difference between an interference pattern and a real particle path being taken is when the environment is set up in such a way that the position or path of the partcile can be known. The same lenses are being used to get both results! The only difference is that when the lenses are arranged in such a way that information can result, the interference pattern collapses. Now! Either this is
1) a very interesting fundamental property of this universe with implications to explore or
2) it is a most amazing coincidence that ONLY the environmental conditions that convey knowledge are the ones that collapse the wave function. And that environmental conditions that don't convey information just happen to also be the ones that allow the wave function to continue.
The first one is easier for me to swallow.
The problem here seems to be that the “beam” of light is being objectified. But these are not the same photons from one second to the next. Perhaps, since I’m no physicist, there’s something I’m missing here, but that’s the impression I get from reading this. [/B]
Yes I think there is something you are missing. You have misunderstood the point of this part of the experiment. Whether they are the same photons or not is irrelevant. The point isn't really to put the same wave function back together. The first part of the experiment is simply showing that whenever the detector can "know" what particle went where, according to it's polarization, the interference pattern will disappear. The next part simply added to the detectors a filter thats sole purpose was to change the "information" that can be gathered. It filtered out one of the polarization options allowing only the other to pass. Since only one has passed the detector no longer has a method to discriminate and "know" which particle went where. So the interference pattern reappears. Putting the 2 parts of the experiment together shows that it is the potential for information that causes the collapse. Unless of course you want to go with my number 2 option above and claim that a adding a polarization filter to the detector just happens to be the proper environmental condition that causes the wave function to "uncollapse". LOL. Again, it would be an amazing coincidence that the collapse only happens when the potential for information increases. IMO, to believe this is simply to deny the implications of what is really going on.
Of course, another option is to show that these experiments never happened and they are a fairy tale. But assuming this isn't true, then the result seems clear.
Fliption
Jul1-03, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
PART II of II
SKEPTICISM AND CERTAIN HYPOTHESES
There is justification for favoring some hypotheses over others. Occam’s razor dictates that we favor explanations with the fewest number of assumptions. Rationality dictates that the degree of acceptance for a proposition be proportionate to the degree of supporting evidence for that proposition.
Occams razor is a guide. It is not the absolute rule. Ask any cosmologist. LOL I'm sure they can spend hours telling you all the violations of that rule in this universe.
The idea that consciousness plays a roll in determining the activities or states of unconnected particles is not based on any other established facts. It is not based on any contending hypothetical construct of reality. It is undeniably “far fetched” and it is not the “straightest line between two dots”.
Even though I entertained you in the quote above, let me set the record straight here. My mention of bias comes from the fact that the word "consciousness" keeps getting brought up here as if it is a refutation of anything I have been saying. I have conceded that the popularization of QM to mean that nothing exists unless a conscious being is observing it, is not correct. My arguments on what QM do mean are in my previous post. What I have said is that once we all understand what these experiments are telling us, then there are philosophical implications that should be explored. The potential for knowledge is what collapses the wave function. So a philosophical discussion can take place to try to determine if knowledge is defined by conscious beings or is it discovered by them?
If it is the latter then consciousness has no role whatsoever in QM. If the former, then it's role would be indirect and would require more discussion/thought for me to say anything about it.
Even the far fetched Copenhagen hypothesis was generated by a scientist actually in the field, yet it also should be viewed with some skepticism.
Exactly what interpretation of QM do you think is the prevailing one today if not a derivative of Copenhagen?
NATURE OF LAYMEN REPORTS
When reading this article, one must note that it is, after all, a popular report - not a scientific paper.
Although it sounds poetic and nice to editors, this is simply sloppy when it comes to accuracy. The use of a quote containing the word “perceive” was a poor choice. The word “perceive” necessarily conjures up the impression in the reader’s mind of consciousness, and not at all what is meant when most scientists discuss measurement. Bishop Berkeley’s quote may make the article poignant, but no less inaccurate - and debates like the one in this thread are the result.
This is another example of the nature of such articles. Horgan wraps up by tagging on the most extreme, unproven, and far fetched concepts he can find. While there is some mention of them being such, no real distinction is made by the writer and no words of caution as to acceptance are offered along with them. The overall impression is left on the lay reader that far exceeds what is really rational to expect at this point. While such may be possible in far fetched speculation, it does not represent the serious work being done in QM. Therefore, one must take articles such as these in the light they are presented - i.e. “with a grain of salt”.
I have no doubt that all sorts of wondrous and unexpected things await discovery in the future, but for lay people such as ourselves to take these simplistically explained reports and start attaching our ancient fantasies to them is unjustified. That was the point of my original post and this article unwittingly supports that assertion. [/B]
Well, now this is what I expected from you in the beginning. I expected you to blast the credibility of the article. Surely you can understand the dilemma we are in here? When only people of a certain view can descern the credibility of scientists and their experiments, how are the rest of us supposed to learn? I read the entire article many, many times. When I get to these parts that you quote, it is obvious to me that what the writer is doing is simple conjecturing on what is possible within the realms of the results of the experiments. Sure it is more for fun, but in the context of the article it is clear that the wild stuff is saved for the last. The point is that none of that stuff is inconsistent with the results of the experiments; the credibility of which should not be affected by your dislike for the writers style of wrapping up an article.
Fliption
Jul1-03, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Fair enough. I just replaced the frame of my glasses, so I can try to look the sites over myself soon.
The fundamental postulation of the HUP - that which causes it to exist in the first place - is that you cannot observer something without changing it. This is taught in every Quantum Physics textbook that I've ever read (and I've read quite a bit), and it is beyond argument. You may, of course, disagree with the principle, but it is nevertheless the central principle of Uncertainty, and really of QM altogether.
HUP aside, it is clear you have not grasped the experiments in these articles. I'd say read it again. I had to read it over and over again myself. I can't tell you how many times I had to read it before I understood all of it. The point that will hopefully become clear is that no measurement was made to the particles when the wave function collapsed that weren't also being made when it didn't collapse. The only thing that changed was information that was being collected elsewhere in the experiment. Therefore, the only change was the potential for knowledge.
Fliption
Jul1-03, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Fliption,
I don't understand the purpose of this experiment. If they measure the path of the idler photons, then they change them - obviously, since HUP states that you cannot measure something without changing it. However, they somehow related that to our having knowledge of it's path. This is not at all true, it's our measuring of it's path that causes a disruption (please remember that you cannot see something unless many photons bounce off of it, and into your eye).
Please explain where my misunderstanding lies.
I'm not sure I can because I don't understand what your question is. The point of that experiment was that idler photons were be "blocked" and this was causing the "signal" photons to collapse. Even though the two were on entirely different paths. The Signal photons had previously shown an interference pattern. Once the idler photons were blocked the signal photons collapsed. The difference is that now we can calculate which path the signal photons took.
Perhaps you have been led astray by language a bit. As I said to Tiberius in my last post, of course it is environmental conditions that initiate the wave function collapse but the collapse seems to be 100% correlated with enviromental conditions that provide "knowledge", 0% correlated with those conditions that don't provide knowledge and 100% reverse correlated with the conditions that take away knowledge.
M. Gaspar
Jul2-03, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Fliption
The only difference is that when the lenses are arranged in such a way that information can result, the interference pattern collapses. Now! Either this is
1) a very interesting fundamental property of this universe with implications to explore or...
Name three (implications)...pls.
Again, it would be an amazing coincidence that the collapse only happens when the potential for information increases. IMO, to believe this is simply to deny the implications of what is really going on.
What's really going on?
Of course, another option is to show that these experiments never happened and they are a fairy tale. But assuming this isn't true, then the result seems clear.
LOL. Good one!
"...Tell me about the rabbits, George."
M. Gaspar
Jul2-03, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Tiberius
Hi Gaspar, It seems like you and Fliption have different positions...
Could be. I can't determine his "position"...I'm observing his speed.
...But what exactly do you mean "toying with the idea"? You mean talking about how cool it would be with others? I'm up for that. If you're talking about trying to propose it's true and getting upset when people say there's no evidence for it, then that's something different.
"Toying with an idea" meanings thinking about it. Since I'm over 12, I don't think about "how cool" anything is...and there are very few I talk to about my notions.
For the LAST TIME...for those in the back row who didn't hear it:
my irritation with you was NOT that you think I'm a crackpot; it is because I thought (rightly or wrongly) that you were lumping me in with OTHER crackpots who were jumping on the QM "observation" misunderstanding. I was not doing so (jumping on it to bolster my speculations). I was asking a straight-out QUESTION as to what the implications WOULD be ...before having it explained that the scientists themselves chose a word that was guaranteed to mislead us lesser lights.
I don't really conduct quantum experiences myself, so I'm not sure what life experiences you're referring to.
For me to respond to this particular kick in the pants, I need to find the post of yours that prompted me to tell you to "Start looking at your life experiences."
A moment please...
M. Gaspar
Jul2-03, 03:42 AM
Ah, here we are...
Originally posted by Tiberius
I never said there weren't all sorts of things in QM that are still being explored. But it IS standard knowledge that consciousness, awareness, knowledge, and intelligent beings have nothing to do with why wave functions collapse or determining reality in the sense that New Agers ascribe (other than their direct physical actions causeing such).
...I'm not sure what you want us to say here? Is "yes! Consciousness plays a role in determining reality!" the only "right" answer for you? If so, good luck, because there's no evidence of that, despite pop book hype.
As you see, you were not talking about quantum experiments here. You were talking about "New Age" books that promote how "consciousness plays a role in determining reality."
I would use a different word than "determining". I would say "creating". And I would not say "consciousness", I would say "intention" (which is an aspect of consciousness).
Hence, my response was to my personal "interpretation" of what you were facetiously saying to Fliption(?) -- that is, "Intention plays a role in creating reality." -- in which case I suggested that instead of burning the books, simply look to your life experiences to see if there is "evidence" that your intentions have "created" your "experience" (the word I would substitute for "reality").
What I didn't add -- but will here -- is that you should take the next year and pay attention to what your intentions create for you ...then get back to me. (Yeh, I'm talkin' 'bout "synchronicities"!)
Meanwhile, although I feel like a little dog yapping to get the attention of a pack of BIG DOGS ... I at least do not have to apologize for being "off topic". You, yourself, imported my notions about consciousness when you started this thread ...which gives me license [:D] to yap in from time to time.
Fliption
Jul2-03, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Name three (implications)...pls.
Well, I can't name implications. I can only tell you that there are implications to explore. In my post to Tiberous I narrowed down the scope of those implications to be either 1) Conscious beings define knowledge and therefore define the criteria which collapse the wave function or 2) Conscious beings simply discover the rules and equations that produce knowledge. At the moment number 2 seems to make the most sense. Conscious beings obtain knowledge through the use of mathematical and logical equations. Universal physics can also be modeled by these same rules. It probably isn't coincidence.
What's really going on?
Don't know. This is why more discussion of implications are needed. But I can tell you what is not going on. A particle's path doesn't become definite just because another particle has run into it, as the original post of this thread claims. All the experiments showthat in order for the wave function to collapse, 2 things must be met. 1) a change in environmental conditions 2) that produces information.
Tiberius
Jul2-03, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Could be. I can't determine his "position"...I'm observing his speed.
clever!
"Toying with an idea" meanings thinking about it. Since I'm over 12, I don't think about "how cool" anything is...and there are very few I talk to about my notions.
Everyone thinks about what's cool - they just don't use that word because they don't want to sound immature. Old ladies at tea parties have their own ideas of what's cool and what isn't, but they use words like, fascinating, proper, mature, repsectable, and acceptable. Since you seem obsessed with worries of people thinking you're 12, then I suppose we can use the word "interesting".
For the LAST TIME...for those in the back row who didn't hear it:
my irritation with you was NOT that you think I'm a crackpot; it is because I thought (rightly or wrongly) that you were lumping me in with OTHER crackpots who were jumping on the QM "observation" misunderstanding.
You are irritated with me? Sorry but I haven't been following your posts much to notice. In fact, to be honest, I didn't even notice anything about you or what you thought about things until about 2 or 3 posts ago. I probably replied to you before then but it was case by case and I didn't remember your name. Sorry.
Tiberius
Jul2-03, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Ah, here we are...
As you see, you were not talking about quantum experiments here. You were talking about "New Age" books that promote how "consciousness plays a role in determining reality."
Yep - that's exactly what I was talking about. And?
I would use a different word than "determining". I would say "creating". And I would not say "consciousness", I would say "intention" (which is an aspect of consciousness).
Ok.
Hence, my response was to my personal "interpretation" of what you were facetiously saying to Fliption(?) -- that is, "Intention plays a role in creating reality." -- in which case I suggested that instead of burning the books, simply look to your life experiences to see if there is "evidence" that your intentions have "created" your "experience" (the word I would substitute for "reality").
What do you mean? Do you mean things like, I "intend" to take out the trash, so then I do, so then the trash is outside? Or I intend to get a job - then I have a job? If that's all you mean then "duh". If you mean something more, please explain.
...Meanwhile, although I feel like a little dog yapping to get the attention of a pack of BIG DOGS ... I at least do not have to apologize for being "off topic". You, yourself, imported my notions about consciousness when you started this thread ...which gives me license [:D] to yap in from time to time.
OH! So that's what's going on. Here I am responding to other's posts and seeing you interjecting as though I was talking to you (which is ok by the way - just confusing). And I was thinking, "What is this guy talking about - does he know me?" So you think I've imported your notions about consciousness when I started this thread?? As I said, when I started this thread I didn't know you or your ideas from adam. This thread was started because the misinterpretations of "observation" in QM is a very common mistake and I simply had the idea to correct it here. In fact, even now I had to look up to remind myself of your screenname - "Gasper" - got it. Sorry for not noticing you before. It's hard to keep everyone and their particular viewpoints straight. Honestly, I guess I don't remember because I respond to particular statements and ideas - not people. Who you are isn't as important to me as what you're saying in any given thread. So, I often respond without even taking note of who the user is.
M. Gaspar
Jul2-03, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Tiberius
What do you mean? Do you mean things like, I "intend" to take out the trash, so then I do, so then the trash is outside? Or I intend to get a job - then I have a job? If that's all you mean then "duh". If you mean something more, please explain.
Not exactly. And while I'm willing to lay down a few lines on the subject, I'm wondering whether this is the thread? Apparently, staying "on topic" is important to the mentors ...and I can understand why.
So you think I've imported your notions about consciousness when I started this thread??
My mistake...facilitated, no doubt, by the appearance of your first post immediately after I asked a question about the phantom QM "observer" on another thread.
Honestly, I guess I don't remember because I respond to particular statements and ideas - not people. Who you are isn't as important to me as what you're saying in any given thread. So, I often respond without even taking note of who the user is.
Alrighty, then. Henceforth I will realize that -- at least on these threads -- you are primarily responding to ideas.
Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I can because I don't understand what your question is. The point of that experiment was that idler photons were be "blocked" and this was causing the "signal" photons to collapse. Even though the two were on entirely different paths. The Signal photons had previously shown an interference pattern. Once the idler photons were blocked the signal photons collapsed. The difference is that now we can calculate which path the signal photons took.
No, the difference is that you blocked the idler photons. These photons were quantum-bound, and what you do to one, immediately affects the other. Surely you know of the EPR experiment, wherein an electron's spin is changed instantaneously because of it's being quantum-bound to another electron, which was being "observed" directly by the experimenters (at least I think that's what happened). However, this "quantum entanglement" is really just a product of the fact that they are not individual particles, but greater probabilities of the wave-function of one electron (or so it was explained to me).
My point is that you cannot literally (in the sense of an individual particle - which doesn't really exist in QM) split a massless particle into two massless particles, but you can split the probability wave of a particle (in the case of your experiment, a photon) in which case, whatever you do to one of the "halves" will instantaneously affect the other "half" (since they are both really the same "particle").
Fliption
Jul3-03, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, the difference is that you blocked the idler photons. These photons were quantum-bound, and what you do to one, immediately affects the other. Surely you know of the EPR experiment, wherein an electron's spin is changed instantaneously because of it's being quantum-bound to another electron, which was being "observed" directly by the experimenters (at least I think that's what happened). However, this "quantum entanglement" is really just a product of the fact that they are not individual particles, but greater probabilities of the wave-function of one electron (or so it was explained to me).
My point is that you cannot literally (in the sense of an individual particle - which doesn't really exist in QM) split a massless particle into two massless particles, but you can split the probability wave of a particle (in the case of your experiment, a photon) in which case, whatever you do to one of the "halves" will instantaneously affect the other "half" (since they are both really the same "particle").
OK you're getting closer but you still aren't getting the full picture. As I've said, obviously the signal photons have been impacted in some way which has caused them to collapse. I understand this completely. But if you read through these experiments you can see that just "blocking the idler photons" is not what causes the collapse. The experiment can be set up such that blocking the idler photons doesn't collapse the signal photons at all. The only difference between the 2 would be that in one case, blocking the idler photons enables you to calculate information about the signal photons. As I said previously, the collapse of the wave function is not 100% correlated with blocking anything. It is 100% correlated with changing the experiment so that you can achieve "knowledge". Thus it is the changes in environmental conditions that create potential for knowledge that collpase wave functions.
When the scientists say they are not interfering with the particle I think they mean that they can hold the interference constant and get a different result. The only thing that changes in the conditions to create this different result is the potential for knowledge; not an additional interference.
Originally posted by Fliption
OK you're getting closer but you still aren't getting the full picture. As I've said, obviously the signal photons have been impacted in some way which has caused them to collapse. I understand this completely. But if you read through these experiments you can see that just "blocking the idler photons" is not what causes the collapse. The experiment can be set up such that blocking the idler photons doesn't collapse the signal photons at all. The only difference between the 2 would be that in one case, blocking the idler photons enables you to calculate information about the signal photons. As I said previously, the collapse of the wave function is not 100% correlated with blocking anything. It is 100% correlated with changing the experiment so that you can achieve "knowledge". Thus it is the changes in environmental conditions that create potential for knowledge that collpase wave functions.
When the scientists say they are not interfering with the particle I think they mean that they can hold the interference constant and get a different result. The only thing that changes in the conditions to create this different result is the potential for knowledge; not an additional interference.
Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?
Fliption
Jul6-03, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?
Yes. I'm not sure I understand where the beef is on this knowing that the wave function didn't collapse. When the wave function doesn't collapse, an interference pattern emerges. Seems simple. Am I missing something?
Originally posted by Fliption
Yes. I'm not sure I understand where the beef is on this knowing that the wave function didn't collapse. When the wave function doesn't collapse, an interference pattern emerges. Seems simple. Am I missing something?
I'm sorry, restate that please (didn't quite get what you mean, and don't want to respond without understanding).
Fliption
Jul7-03, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, restate that please (didn't quite get what you mean, and don't want to respond without understanding).
Sorry. I was making an assumption that perhaps I shouldn't have. Let's start over. Please rephrase your question. I'm not sure I understoood it.
This question....
Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?
Originally posted by Fliption
Sorry. I was making an assumption that perhaps I shouldn't have. Let's start over. Please rephrase your question. I'm not sure I understoood it.
This question....
Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?
Hmm...I guess I was asking if they were saying that they interfered with the idler photons, but didn't collapse the wave-function - in the first experiment. This is what you seemed to imply.
Fliption
Jul8-03, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Hmm...I guess I was asking if they were saying that they interfered with the idler photons, but didn't collapse the wave-function - in the first experiment. This is what you seemed to imply.
No I don't think so. The very first thing they would do is probably not interfere with the idler photons and show that the wave function did not collapse. Then they measure the idler photons and show that the signal photons wave function collapses. The next step is what I was talking about. Where the measurement is made on the idler photons and then subsequently the information "erased". When this is done the signal photons show an interference pattern again. I will have to re-read to see how or whether this exact step was done in this experiment. But if you read through the article you will see it littered with experiments that go this next step. You may recall the "eraser" experiments? These experiments do exactly this. They interfere and determine the path of the photons moving through the 2 slits(I like this word [:)]) thus causing the wave function to collapse. The photons choose a path. Then the experiment places an eraser of this information on the opposite side of the slits. The photons have to decide whether to collpase or not before it gets to the eraser. Once this information is erased the interference pattern returns. So the question in this particular experiment would be "How does the photon know that the information will be erased on the opposite side of the slits?" I don't ask this question looking for a profound answer. I ask it so that you can see what the point of the experiment is.
Anything else could have been placed in the path of the photons besides the eraser and the wave function would have remained collapsed. It requires more than just something blocking it or other particles to bump into. If that was all it took then it's a wonder we ever see an interference pattern. These experiments continually appear to show that not only are photons nowhere in particular but they are also nowhen in particular! The only thing that makes the photon choose a place and a time is when the conditions allow for information. Once the information is gone, the photon returns back to lala land.
What does all this mean? Who knows? But it's certainly not the billiard ball "common sense"(his words not mine) world that Tiberius painted in his original post on this thread.
Originally posted by Fliption
No I don't think so. The very first thing they would do is probably not interfere with the idler photons and show that the wave function did not collapse.
How can you possibly "show" that the wave-function didn't collapse? This is impossible, even according to their hypothesis (which postulates that their being able to "know" whether the wave-function had collapsed or not would cause it to collapse).
Then they measure the idler photons and show that the signal photons wave function collapses. The next step is what I was talking about. Where the measurement is made on the idler photons and then subsequently the information "erased". When this is done the signal photons show an interference pattern again. I will have to re-read to see how or whether this exact step was done in this experiment. But if you read through the article you will see it littered with experiments that go this next step. You may recall the "eraser" experiments? These experiments do exactly this. They interfere and determine the path of the photons moving through the 2 slits(I like this word [:)]) thus causing the wave function to collapse. The photons choose a path. Then the experiment places an eraser of this information on the opposite side of the slits. The photons have to decide whether to collpase or not before it gets to the eraser. Once this information is erased the interference pattern returns. So the question in this particular experiment would be "How does the photon know that the information will be erased on the opposite side of the slits?" I don't ask this question looking for a profound answer. I ask it so that you can see what the point of the experiment is.
But the photon can't "know" anything! Isn't that obvious? Honestly! Please choose different terminology, because a hypothesis that require conscious photons is doomed to failure.
Anyway, I don't understand what "erasing" means. What does it mean to "erase the information", in this experiment?
Anything else could have been placed in the path of the photons besides the eraser and the wave function would have remained collapsed. It requires more than just something blocking it or other particles to bump into. If that was all it took then it's a wonder we ever see an interference pattern. These experiments continually appear to show that not only are photons nowhere in particular but they are also nowhen in particular! The only thing that makes the photon choose a place and a time is when the conditions allow for information. Once the information is gone, the photon returns back to lala land.
Whatever, but the information had nothing to do with it (AFAIU), since information doesn't even exist at the subatomic level. But, I will withhold further comment, until you explain what an "eraser" is.
Fliption
Jul9-03, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
How can you possibly "show" that the wave-function didn't collapse? This is impossible, even according to their hypothesis (which postulates that their being able to "know" whether the wave-function had collapsed or not would cause it to collapse).
Yeah this is where I thought you were originally going several posts back. I do not understand this point at all. You know that the wave function does not collapse because you can observe the interference pattern. This is exactly the point. The photon wave function does not collapse just because it has hit a screen. It takes more than just a physical disturbance. The screen will show an interence pattern demonstrating that the wave function DID NOT collapse. This is just the basics of QM. You can go no further if you don't understand this.
But the photon can't "know" anything! Isn't that obvious? Honestly! Please choose different terminology, because a hypothesis that require conscious photons is doomed to failure.
Hmm you're a bit sensitive. This is just a figure of speech. Scientists wax poetic all the time in this manner. So you'll excuse me if I don't spend an extra 15 minutes trying to find words that will appease. I kinda expected this reaction which is why I said I don't ask this question to provoke a profound answer. I am merely asking the question this way so that you can understand the goal of the experiment. Whether consciousness is involved is totally irrelevant to this point anyway.
And let me also suggest that once you understand this stuff NOTHING is obvious. This is really the whole point of my entry into this thread. This "clarification" has oversimplfied QM to the point that it's just wrong. If you disagree then you will have to say why. Saying it is obvious will not work.
Anyway, I don't understand what "erasing" means. What does it mean to "erase the information", in this experiment?
This is clearly spelled out in the experiments.
Whatever, but the information had nothing to do with it (AFAIU), since information doesn't even exist at the subatomic level. But, I will withhold further comment, until you explain what an "eraser" is. [/B]
Then you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with every QM experiment that's been done. All I can say is that you need to be much more thorough at reading about this stuff. Spend some time with it objectively. Leave your pre-conceptions about what is "obvious" behind. If you don't know what the concept of an eraser is then you don't understand enough about the experiments to make the statements you're making.
I say go try to understand it and then let's talk about what it means. It is much more efficient for me to provide links to information and then we discuss it. The details of the experiments speak for themselves. You have to understand that much before we can talk about what it means and what it doesn't mean.
Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah this is where I thought you were originally going several posts back. I do not understand this point at all. You know that the wave function does not collapse because you can observe the interference pattern. This is exactly the point. The photon wave function does not collapse just because it has hit a screen. It takes more than just a physical disturbance. The screen will show an interence pattern demonstrating that the wave function DID NOT collapse. This is just the basics of QM. You can go no further if you don't understand this.
No, I understand this just fine, but doesn't it contradict their own assumption (that their "knowledge" of the state of the wave-function causes it to collapse)?
Hmm you're a bit sensitive. This is just a figure of speech. Scientists wax poetic all the time in this manner. So you'll excuse me if I don't spend an extra 15 minutes trying to find words that will appease. I kinda expected this reaction which is why I said I don't ask this question to provoke a profound answer. I am merely asking the question this way so that you can understand the goal of the experiment. Whether consciousness is involved is totally irrelevant to this point anyway.
No it's not, since you are implying that the photon changes "when threatened" by the possibility of being "known". This is an example of foresight, and it takes consciousness to have foresight. Please note: this is not a semantic argument, you can try to use other words if you want, but it wont change the fact that they are implying a photon's having "knowledge".
And let me also suggest that once you understand this stuff NOTHING is obvious. This is really the whole point of my entry into this thread. This "clarification" has oversimplfied QM to the point that it's just wrong. If you disagree then you will have to say why. Saying it is obvious will not work.
Well, I understand that we shouldn't oversimplify QM, and that it is really inconceivable, but I still don't see where Tiberius got anything wrong.
Okay, I will say why I disagree that Tiberius is wrong: The actual textbooks on QM agree with him. That's basically it, though I also happen to know a bit about consciousness and knowledge now - that they are macroscopic phenomena and couldn't possibly have an affect on the subatomic realm (where the brain is composed of exactly the same things as a rock).
This is clearly spelled out in the experiments.
When will people understand that I get one hour on the internet, to do everything that I have to do (mainly PFs, but I am also involved in trying to find some therapies for my friends dying wife (she has breast cancer that is in metastasis )). Please, if you cannot explain what an "eraser" is, just say so. If you can, then do it. I don't have time to refer to the links. Sorry.
Then you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with every QM experiment that's been done.
In what way?! Information is a product of the workings of computers (be the organic or otherwise). But all of these computing devices (including the brain) are composed of subatomic particles. Therefore, how is a photon to distinguish an electron that happens to belong to a brain, from one that happens to belong to a piece of seaweed?
Also, take the experiment that we are discussing, for example: They said that they had "split the photons", when you obviously cannot split a massless particle into smaller pieces - thus, what it means to "split the particle" is to split it's probability, so that it is most probably in those two different directions. If you have not understood this (quantum entanglement) by now, then it is you who needs to do more study (and layman texts are probably not the best place - no offense).
All I can say is that you need to be much more thorough at reading about this stuff.
I will continue to read about "this stuff", but I wont rely on layman texts to do so, since they can only ever be partially accurate, and are usually reliant on analogy. Think of how much havoc the Schrodinger's Cat analogy caused. Instead of viewing QM as a theory of particles - which is what it is - they viewed it as a theory where cats are only alive when we're looking at them (an interpretation that was certainly not Schrodinger's goal).
Spend some time with it objectively. Leave your pre-conceptions about what is "obvious" behind. If you don't know what the concept of an eraser is then you don't understand enough about the experiments to make the statements you're making.
Well then could you please enlighten me, as to what an eraser is? I don't like when people make statement such as the above (quoted), they sound like they are dodging (or, rather, avoiding giving me an explanation since they themselves don't understand it). I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but "do more research" comments (without some kind of explanation) are usually dodges.
Fliption
Jul13-03, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, I understand this just fine, but doesn't it contradict their own assumption (that their "knowledge" of the state of the wave-function causes it to collapse)?
I am still not following. Please be more specific about what you're question is here. I see no contradiction. If it is there, then tell me what it is exactly.
No it's not, since you are implying that the photon changes "when threatened" by the possibility of being "known". This is an example of foresight, and it takes consciousness to have foresight. Please note: this is not a semantic argument, you can try to use other words if you want, but it wont change the fact that they are implying a photon's having "knowledge".
Ahhh. Now I see where the problem is. You cannot respond to the experiments. You just don't intuitively like what you "think" they imply based on what I'm saying. Well they don't imply any of that necessarily. I have made a few statements several pages back about what I think the implications could be. But thats a discussion that belongs in this philosophy forum if we can ever get people past the classical physics dogma.
Well, I understand that we shouldn't oversimplify QM, and that it is really inconceivable, but I still don't see where Tiberius got anything wrong.
Because he believes what you believe. Thats the bottom line apparently. I have shown you text where what Tiberius is saying is just wrong, but you won't read it or refuse to understand it. What else can I do? If I tell you what it says you'll just do what you're doing now. You'll just tell me it's laymans text and ignore it. If the text is wrong then point specifically to the reason why. Picking at my choice of words as I oblige your time constraints is not convincing.
Okay, I will say why I disagree that Tiberius is wrong: The actual textbooks on QM agree with him. That's basically it, though I also happen to know a bit about consciousness and knowledge now - that they are macroscopic phenomena and couldn't possibly have an affect on the subatomic realm (where the brain is composed of exactly the same things as a rock).
Consciousness need not have anything to do with it. These assumptions are getting in your way of understanding, I think.
When will people understand that I get one hour on the internet, to do everything that I have to do (mainly PFs, but I am also involved in trying to find some therapies for my friends dying wife (she has breast cancer that is in metastasis )). Please, if you cannot explain what an "eraser" is, just say so. If you can, then do it. I don't have time to refer to the links. Sorry.
I can explain what an eraser is. I assure you I would not be saying that Tiberius is inaccurate if I couldn't.
In what way?! Information is a product of the workings of computers (be the organic or otherwise). But all of these computing devices (including the brain) are composed of subatomic particles. Therefore, how is a photon to distinguish an electron that happens to belong to a brain, from one that happens to belong to a piece of seaweed?
Here are more presumptions about what you "think" the experiments imply. Let go of these bias' and just read. Photons are not proved or implied to be conscious in any way by anything that I have linked. I think that you are assuming that these experiments imply some sort of conscious connection and you have the opinion that this couldn't possibly be true so you are just closed off to what the experiments are saying. Free your mind! Forget the conscous stuff and approach with an attitude of inquisition.
Also, take the experiment that we are discussing, for example: They said that they had "split the photons", when you obviously cannot split a massless particle into smaller pieces - thus, what it means to "split the particle" is to split it's probability, so that it is most probably in those two different directions. If you have not understood this (quantum entanglement) by now, then it is you who needs to do more study (and layman texts are probably not the best place - no offense).
And I bet you think the photon is really there too? You think the probability for it's position is just because we can't know where it is right? Not because it isn't really "someplace"? Is this what you think? I may just ask you to explain Qm as you see it. That might help quite a bit. But if it is nothing but an extension of classical physics at the sub atomic level, then I'm likely to say it's wrong.
I will continue to read about "this stuff", but I wont rely on layman texts to do so, since they can only ever be partially accurate, and are usually reliant on analogy. Think of how much havoc the Schrodinger's Cat analogy caused. Instead of viewing QM as a theory of particles - which is what it is - they viewed it as a theory where cats are only alive when we're looking at them (an interpretation that was certainly not Schrodinger's goal).
You haven't even read it so how can you consider it to be laymans text? And if you have read it you have not responded to it specifically. All you've done is respond that what I'm telling you contradicts what you think, therefore it must be wrong.
And if it is laymans text then why ask me what it means?
Well then could you please enlighten me, as to what an eraser is? I don't like when people make statement such as the above (quoted), they sound like they are dodging (or, rather, avoiding giving me an explanation since they themselves don't understand it). I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but "do more research" comments (without some kind of explanation) are usually dodges. [/B]
Gulp. Dodging? Heh. I have done nothing but lay out my argument for you. I have provided text for you to pick apart. How could I be dodging? If you want to understand the experiments, including the eraser, then go read the text provided. I can sympathize with time contraints but I don't think you're time prorities ought to be the basis for my consideration as a dodger.
Now I could explain to you what the eraser is but the honest to god truth is that I don't think it would matter as far as your opinion is concerned. I suspect we have some semantic problems here anyway because I still cannot understand the question at the top of this thread that you asked. This seems like a basic understand of QM. We can't progress at all until we get that straight. Why don't you just explain what you think QM is? How abbout explaining the 2 slit experiment and explain what's happening as you go?
Ivan Seeking
Jul13-03, 11:34 PM
Well I need to read the entire thread but the discussion is all too familiar: Fliption is right. Sorry Mentat, but I have seen this problem before. The empiricists point of view is still alive, but you are struggling to breath under the weight of the evidence.
I recently made a survey of this issue of measurement and deeper interpretations. The fact is, the greatest minds in science are all over the board. Here is an excerpt from a letter written to a friend. Bare in mind that sub catagories of each subject are also found.
@A: Murray Gell-Mann
@Q: Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into
believing that the problem [of the interpretation of quantum mechanics] had been solved fifty years ago.
@R: Acceptance speech Noble Prize (1976)
It seems that tempers haven't calmed much in 50 years. Consider Heisenberg's comment on the subject from 1927:
"I remember that it ended with my breaking out in tears because I just couldn't stand this pressure from Bohr"
Here is the thing that most surprises me: The arguments about what causes the collapse of a quantum wave function - the definition of "measurement" - are still all over the board. Of course, Bohr's decedents still hold that it doesn't matter. All that matters are the numbers. This is fine for empiricists, but what will the theoreticians do? Really though, this seems to ignore the requirement for a complete theory. Penrose and friends argue that gravity acts to force Schrödinger's equations non-linear causing the collapse. Gell-Mann and friends contend that collapse occurs when a quantum system interacts with another system having many degrees of freedom - "decoherence" . The Many Worlds people, which I guess still includes Wheeler [I forget where Whitten comes down on all of this] still contend that the entire universe splits into two with every observation. The requirement that a consciousness be observing - one core problem with Schrödinger's Cat - is still widely argued. This all gets into Von Neumann's discussions about what happens if I measure using an instrument that measures another instrument, measuring instruments etc. Which measurement actually causes the collapse? Then, the brain gets into the act as an instrument. This then gets into ideas that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, and that the observer's consciousness gets "entangled" with the experiment.... Boy, if you want to send a Bohrian into orbit try that one on him!
But here is my favorite:
It seems the Quantum Cosmologists have their own funny ideas. They don't think we can collapse wave functions by observing things, rather, they argue that when I look at a gauge, I leap into a superposition of eigenstates! Gee, I never felt a thing!
Finally, I also saw a recent article in Scientific American, I think, where collapse is argued to be a relative phenomenon. It's a wave for you and a particle for me...all in the same universe? YIKES!
Originally posted by Fliption
I am still not following. Please be more specific about what you're question is here. I see no contradiction. If it is there, then tell me what it is exactly.
Ok (now I've read some more of the site, though I still don't have time to read all of it). It was my understanding that they are assuming they can know that the wave-function didn't collapse, and yet not collapse it by their knowledge of it's state, and yet their premise is that the collapse of the wave-function is a result of their knowledge of it's state.
Ahhh. Now I see where the problem is. You cannot respond to the experiments. You just don't intuitively like what you "think" they imply based on what I'm saying. Well they don't imply any of that necessarily. I have made a few statements several pages back about what I think the implications could be. But thats a discussion that belongs in this philosophy forum if we can ever get people past the classical physics dogma.
No, my problem is that they use such terms as the "threat" of being detected and the "knowledge" of being observed.
I'm sorry, I must go now. I will finish my response as soon as I can get back on-line.
Fliption
Jul14-03, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Ok (now I've read some more of the site, though I still don't have time to read all of it). It was my understanding that they are assuming they can know that the wave-function didn't collapse, and yet not collapse it by their knowledge of it's state, and yet their premise is that the collapse of the wave-function is a result of their knowledge of it's state.
Ahh ok I see what you're saying. Let me see if I can clarify. They aren't saying that the wave function of a photon will collapse when they know the state of the wave function itself. The knowledge that they are speaking of is not knowledge of the state of the wave function. Whether the wave function is present or collapses can easily be determined. That isn't the issue.
The knowledge that they are speaking of is the path of the photon itself. This is what cannot be known without collapsing the wave function. And when ever the information pointing to the path of the photon has been erased, the wave function will re-appear!
I decided earlier that I would try to post a step by step of an experiment. This way you can point to a segment that bothers you. Hopefully at the end, it will be clear what the experiments have shown. I don't have time right now. Will try to do this later.
No, my problem is that they use such terms as the "threat" of being detected and the "knowledge" of being observed.
The words they use are simply the easiest to use without alot of explanation. I assume they figure most people can tell from scientific context what they are saying.
Originally posted by Fliption
Because he believes what you believe. Thats the bottom line apparently. I have shown you text where what Tiberius is saying is just wrong, but you won't read it or refuse to understand it. What else can I do? If I tell you what it says you'll just do what you're doing now. You'll just tell me it's laymans text and ignore it. If the text is wrong then point specifically to the reason why. Picking at my choice of words as I oblige your time constraints is not convincing.
Alright, maybe my problem with the experiment is that I don't completely understand it. It seems like they are trying to prove that just the "threat" - or possibility - of our gaining knolwedge of it's path makes it's wave-function collapse. It appears that they believe they can deduce this from the fact that they interrupted the idler photon but not the signal photon, thus making themselves able to know the path of the signal photon, without interfering with it, and yet the wave-function still collapsed. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, of if I missed something.)
The thing is that this experiment is just like the EPR experiment, and that has long been settled (or so I thought) by saying that the two electrons (or, in the case of your experiment, photons) are quantum-bound to each other (since they are really just greater probabilities of the same particle), and so whatever you do to one affects the other.
Consciousness need not have anything to do with it. These assumptions are getting in your way of understanding, I think.
Well, consciousness is required for the photon to detect our gaining knowledge, or the possibility of our gaining knowledge. But I can drop that point for now, if you want.
I can explain what an eraser is. I assure you I would not be saying that Tiberius is inaccurate if I couldn't.
Then do it.
Here are more presumptions about what you "think" the experiments imply. Let go of these bias' and just read. Photons are not proved or implied to be conscious in any way by anything that I have linked. I think that you are assuming that these experiments imply some sort of conscious connection and you have the opinion that this couldn't possibly be true so you are just closed off to what the experiments are saying. Free your mind! Forget the conscous stuff and approach with an attitude of inquisition.
Alright, I can forget the "conscious stuff", if you can explain to me how a photon can "know" or "suspect" or even "assume" without being conscious. After all, it must "know", "suspect", or "assume" that we can gain knowledge of it, in order to "decide" (another conscious process) to collapse it's wave-function.
And I bet you think the photon is really there too? You think the probability for it's position is just because we can't know where it is right?
NO! Completely the opposite. In fact, I thought that hints of this kind of classical reasoning were at the heart of your reasoning. But I guess we both misjudged each other there.
You haven't even read it so how can you consider it to be laymans text? And if you have read it you have not responded to it specifically. All you've done is respond that what I'm telling you contradicts what you think, therefore it must be wrong.
That's not what I was intending to imply, and I apologize if it came out in such an arrogant fashion. However, I have now read most of the text, and have replied (above) to what I think a couple of flaws are.
Also, please remember that "layman's text" is not degrading in any sense; and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't cover any serious or complicated issues. It only means that they leave out the details (usually mathematics), and instead try to interpret them into common language. I believe I gave the example before of Schrodinger's Cat illustration. In that analogy, Schrodinger was explaining the common occurances of the subatomic world, in terms of some macroscopic being, which most people could relate to easily. However, this may mislead people into thinking that it is our watching of our pet cat that causes it's very existence, which is not really true.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well I need to read the entire thread but the discussion is all too familiar: Fliption is right. Sorry Mentat, but I have seen this problem before. The empiricists point of view is still alive, but you are struggling to breath under the weight of the evidence.
I recently made a survey of this issue of measurement and deeper interpretations. The fact is, the greatest minds in science are all over the board. Here is an excerpt from a letter written to a friend. Bare in mind that sub catagories of each subject are also found.
@A: Murray Gell-Mann
@Q: Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into
believing that the problem [of the interpretation of quantum mechanics] had been solved fifty years ago.
@R: Acceptance speech Noble Prize (1976)
It seems that tempers haven't calmed much in 50 years. Consider Heisenberg's comment on the subject from 1927:
"I remember that it ended with my breaking out in tears because I just couldn't stand this pressure from Bohr"
Here is the thing that most surprises me: The arguments about what causes the collapse of a quantum wave function - the definition of "measurement" - are still all over the board. Of course, Bohr's decedents still hold that it doesn't matter. All that matters are the numbers. This is fine for empiricists, but what will the theoreticians do? Really though, this seems to ignore the requirement for a complete theory. Penrose and friends argue that gravity acts to force Schrödinger's equations non-linear causing the collapse. Gell-Mann and friends contend that collapse occurs when a quantum system interacts with another system having many degrees of freedom - "decoherence" . The Many Worlds people, which I guess still includes Wheeler [I forget where Whitten comes down on all of this] still contend that the entire universe splits into two with every observation. The requirement that a consciousness be observing - one core problem with Schrödinger's Cat - is still widely argued. This all gets into Von Neumann's discussions about what happens if I measure using an instrument that measures another instrument, measuring instruments etc. Which measurement actually causes the collapse? Then, the brain gets into the act as an instrument. This then gets into ideas that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, and that the observer's consciousness gets "entangled" with the experiment.... Boy, if you want to send a Bohrian into orbit try that one on him!
This just proves that there is still contraversy on the subject, and I never said that there wasn't. However, for those that say that consciousness has something to do with it, all I can say is that they need a better understanding of the workings of the brain. Consciousness is one of those workings of the brain, and so it is obviously not distinguishable at the subatomic level (it would be like postulating that "color" has some affect on sub-atomic phenomena).
But here is my favorite:
It seems the Quantum Cosmologists have their own funny ideas. They don't think we can collapse wave functions by observing things, rather, they argue that when I look at a gauge, I leap into a superposition of eigenstates! Gee, I never felt a thing!
Finally, I also saw a recent article in Scientific American, I think, where collapse is argued to be a relative phenomenon. It's a wave for you and a particle for me...all in the same universe? YIKES!
I don't like when people appeal to common sense, while trying to understand QM. QM is counter-intuitive and cannot be understood in terms of common sense (which is why good layman texts are so hard to find).
Ivan Seeking
Jul14-03, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
This just proves that there is still contraversy on the subject, and I never said that there wasn't. However, for those that say that consciousness has something to do with it, all I can say is that they need a better understanding of the workings of the brain. Consciousness is one of those workings of the brain, and so it is obviously not distinguishable at the subatomic level (it would be like postulating that "color" has some affect on sub-atomic phenomena).
In the end thought must be enabled through QM processes. I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that the mind could somehow entangle with an experiment is seen worthy of pursuit by some very brilliant people. Also, the original post by Tiberius and many of the comments that follow would indicate that this is not justifiably controversial. My post was intended to show otherwise. The core of this argument about consciousness is over 70 years old. Are you arguing that you have figured it out? You don't seem willing to learn before drawing conclusions. It does appear as if your mind is set to one interpretation in spite of evidence to the contrary. Oh what an entangled web we weave when first we measure to perceive.
I don't like when people appeal to common sense, while trying to understand QM. QM is counter-intuitive and cannot be understood in terms of common sense (which is why good layman texts are so hard to find).
Was I appealing to common sense, or was this just a general comment?
Fliption
Jul14-03, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I recently made a survey of this issue of measurement and deeper interpretations. The fact is, the greatest minds in science are all over the board.
I have to agree with all this. From all that I've read there does seem to be alot of differences among scientists on this very topic. This is the very reason I responded to this thread. I don't have the answers on QM but I am pretty sure that Tiberius doesn't either. Which is exactly the point. This issue has not been resolved. If what Tiberius is saying is true then I see no reason at all why these scientists are wasting there time doing these experiments because they are geared toward answering the question "what causes the wave function to collapse?" Why bother if the answer is so obvious?
Ivan Seeking
Jul14-03, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
I have to agree with all this. From all that I've read there does seem to be alot of differences among scientists on this very topic. This is the very reason I responded to this thread. I don't have the answers on QM but I am pretty sure that Tiberius doesn't either. Which is exactly the point. This issue has not been resolved. If what Tiberius is saying is true then I see no reason at all why these scientists are wasting there time doing these experiments because they are geared toward answering the question "what causes the wave function to collapse?" Why bother if the answer is so obvious?
IMHO, one reason this happens is the unfortunate habit that physicists have of stating their position as if it is the only one. I was literally taught not to waste time by informing everyone that an assertion is just my opinion. To be exact, the phrase was "everyone already knows that". This was a part of the prepared lecture. Unfortunately, when the typical student reads about the theory and philosophy of a particular school of thought, that this material is not gospel truth is not always obvious. I was lead in circle for years because of this. I have encountered a fair number of physicists who will deny the credibility of theories about which they know very little. Someone taught them that Bohr was right and there it ended.
Fliption
Jul14-03, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, maybe my problem with the experiment is that I don't completely understand it. It seems like they are trying to prove that just the "threat" - or possibility - of our gaining knolwedge of it's path makes it's wave-function collapse. It appears that they believe they can deduce this from the fact that they interrupted the idler photon but not the signal photon, thus making themselves able to know the path of the signal photon, without interfering with it, and yet the wave-function still collapsed. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, of if I missed something.)
Yes I'd say you just about got that one. But let me say that I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the words like "threat" or possibility of knowledge and you're assuming that the implications has to do with consciousness, therefore this is wrong. The first thing we must do, is understand the experiment. Then we can decide what it means and what it doesn't mean. Once you understand the experiment you will no longer have to guess what they mean when they use certain words. You will know what they mean.
So let's just start with an example similar to the one you stated above since you seem to have it. Now I'm going to butcher the experiments a bit. I want to get to the main points without going into detail on exactly how a mirror was positioned ect. I will try to stick to the relevant points and simplify this a bit.
1) A beam of light has been split into two. Mirrors are used to point these 2 beams back together and converge them at another splitter forming a diamond shape. The second splitter sends two beams to 2 photon detectors;One detector for each beam.
Without going any further, with just step 1, we know that the photons arrival data into the detectors will show an interference pattern. This means that we cannot know which path a photon chose to go. It's path between the 2 splitters( a diamond shape) is a complete mystery. It seemingly has gone down both paths.
2) Now you place a device into the path of one of the split beams that changes the polarization of the photons.
This is simply a way to "tag" these photons and differentiate them from the photons going down the other path. Polarization of photons is binary so there are only 2 options. So now we have 2 paths of photons with different polarity converging at the 2nd splitter. Now the interference pattern in the light detectors is gone.
At this point you(Mentat) would say the wave function collapses because we have simply interacted with it. And these scientists are saying that it collapses because we can now determine which slit the photons traveled. Because now whenever either detector tells us that it has received a tagged photon, we know which path the photon has traveled. So either interpretation could be correct at this point.
3) Now you place a polarization filter in front of both detectors that only allows photons of one polarity through.
Now with this addition we have inserted another physical interaction with the photons. We have filtered out one polarity type. So that means that the detectors will now receive no distinguishing information about the photons. This is very much the same situation we started with. And now the interference pattern has re-appeared.
It is this 3rd step that isn't explained by what you are saying. This is the "eraser" part since the distinguishing information that we had has now been erased by the filter.
I have heard you say that our interaction with the photons is what collapses the wave function, but I have not heard you say that another interaction uncollapses it! The correlation seems to be with the abilty for the path to be known; not interactions or disruptions.
The thing is that this experiment is just like the EPR experiment, and that has long been settled (or so I thought) by saying that the two electrons (or, in the case of your experiment, photons) are quantum-bound to each other (since they are really just greater probabilities of the same particle), and so whatever you do to one affects the other.
True but this leaves out step 3 above.
Well, consciousness is required for the photon to detect our gaining knowledge, or the possibility of our gaining knowledge. But I can drop that point for now, if you want.
Alright, I can forget the "conscious stuff", if you can explain to me how a photon can "know" or "suspect" or even "assume" without being conscious. After all, it must "know", "suspect", or "assume" that we can gain knowledge of it, in order to "decide" (another conscious process) to collapse it's wave-function.
Does the universe understand Calculus? It seems to because it obeys it perfectly. I'll let you simmer on that one a while. This discussion really is where we ought to be in this forum.
Ivan Seeking
Jul15-03, 01:37 AM
I have read quite a bit of this thread but it is very long. Please forgive if this has been discussed. From what I gather this issue of the eraser is problematic. Another example that may be helpful is that of a certain diffraction experiment that I read about. Some kind of special material I think was used, I'm not sure what this was, but the properties were such that for every photon that enters, two emerge with half the frequency of the source and at different angles. From this, in principle we have a one to one mapping between photon pairs a, and a'. We now take one of each pair and send them down separate paths, A, and A'; into the required mirrors and such, through a diffraction grating, and finally onto a target.
If I make no measurement, we see the classic diffraction pattern on targets A, and A'. If we measure the position of particle a in path A, we can infer the position for the corresponding particle a' in A'. Thus, if I measure for position in path A, since now I can infer knowledge of position for a’, in A', the diffraction pattern is destroyed in both A, and A'.
Fliption
Jul15-03, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If I make no measurement, we see the classic diffraction pattern on targets A, and A'. If we measure the position of particle a in path A, we can infer the position for the corresponding particle a' in A'. Thus, if I measure for position in path A, since now I can infer knowledge of position for a’, in A', the diffraction pattern is destroyed in both A, and A'.
Yes, actually thats the same experiment as the eraser experiment. The eraser is just an additional step on that same setup. The device that you mentioned is called a down-converter in the article. It does just as you said. It splits a photon into 2 lower frenquency photons and sends them down different paths.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the end thought must be enabled through QM processes. I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that the mind could somehow entangle with an experiment is seen worthy of pursuit by some very brilliant people. Also, the original post by Tiberius and many of the comments that follow would indicate that this is not justifiably controversial. My post was intended to show otherwise. The core of this argument about consciousness is over 70 years old. Are you arguing that you have figured it out? You don't seem willing to learn before drawing conclusions. It does appear as if your mind is set to one interpretation in spite of evidence to the contrary. Oh what an entangled web we weave when first we measure to perceive.
My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.
Was I appealing to common sense, or was this just a general comment?
Well, you probably weren't, but some of the things your quote were:
It seems the Quantum Cosmologists have their own funny ideas. They don't think we can collapse wave functions by observing things, rather, they argue that when I look at a gauge, I leap into a superposition of eigenstates! Gee, I never felt a thing!
Finally, I also saw a recent article in Scientific American, I think, where collapse is argued to be a relative phenomenon. It's a wave for you and a particle for me...all in the same universe? YIKES!
Originally posted by Fliption
Yes I'd say you just about got that one. But let me say that I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the words like "threat" or possibility of knowledge and you're assuming that the implications has to do with consciousness, therefore this is wrong.
Well, they did, after all use those very words, and it appears to fit with their hypothesis, since their "knowledge" would have to change the photon (and it doesn't appear that this could be the case, unless the photon, at some point, posessed knowledge of our knowledge).
The first thing we must do, is understand the experiment. Then we can decide what it means and what it doesn't mean. Once you understand the experiment you will no longer have to guess what they mean when they use certain words. You will know what they mean.
Alrighty then.
So let's just start with an example similar to the one you stated above since you seem to have it. Now I'm going to butcher the experiments a bit. I want to get to the main points without going into detail on exactly how a mirror was positioned ect. I will try to stick to the relevant points and simplify this a bit.
1) A beam of light has been split into two. Mirrors are used to point these 2 beams back together and converge them at another splitter forming a diamond shape. The second splitter sends two beams to 2 photon detectors;One detector for each beam.
Without going any further, with just step 1, we know that the photons arrival data into the detectors will show an interference pattern. This means that we cannot know which path a photon chose to go. It's path between the 2 splitters( a diamond shape) is a complete mystery. It seemingly has gone down both paths.
2) Now you place a device into the path of one of the split beams that changes the polarization of the photons.
This is simply a way to "tag" these photons and differentiate them from the photons going down the other path. Polarization of photons is binary so there are only 2 options. So now we have 2 paths of photons with different polarity converging at the 2nd splitter. Now the interference pattern in the light detectors is gone.
At this point you(Mentat) would say the wave function collapses because we have simply interacted with it. And these scientists are saying that it collapses because we can now determine which slit the photons traveled. Because now whenever either detector tells us that it has received a tagged photon, we know which path the photon has traveled. So either interpretation could be correct at this point.
3) Now you place a polarization filter in front of both detectors that only allows photons of one polarity through.
Now with this addition we have inserted another physical interaction with the photons. We have filtered out one polarity type. So that means that the detectors will now receive no distinguishing information about the photons. This is very much the same situation we started with. And now the interference pattern has re-appeared.
It is this 3rd step that isn't explained by what you are saying. This is the "eraser" part since the distinguishing information that we had has now been erased by the filter.
I have heard you say that our interaction with the photons is what collapses the wave function, but I have not heard you say that another interaction uncollapses it! The correlation seems to be with the abilty for the path to be known; not interactions or disruptions.
But they didn't make all of these different changes on the same beem of light (did they?), and so it needn't be collapsed an then uncollapsed.
As far as that third step goes, I'd say that you've not taken into account the quantum effect on the very polarization of the photon. After all, you have not "split" some ball-shaped (yet massless) particle, but have just split it's probability - so that it is greatly probable that it is in one of those two positions, but it is not completely "true", since nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world.
I apologize, I must get off-line now. I will complete my response tomorrow. I would much appreciate it if you didn't respond to my post until it is complete, but that is up to you.
Ivan Seeking
Jul16-03, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided. [:D]
Well, you probably weren't, but some of the things your quote were:
Ah. I was being flippant. Being from a personal letter to a friend, the tone was a little different than a regular post. I was just joking a bit.
Jagger2003
Jul16-03, 05:57 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Name three (implications)...pls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I can't name implications. I can only tell you that there are implications to explore. In my post to Tiberous I narrowed down the scope of those implications to be either 1) Conscious beings define knowledge and therefore define the criteria which collapse the wave function or 2) Conscious beings simply discover the rules and equations that produce knowledge. At the moment number 2 seems to make the most sense. Conscious beings obtain knowledge through the use of mathematical and logical equations. Universal physics can also be modeled by these same rules. It probably isn't coincidence.
Fascinating thread. IMO, the implications are revolutionary. Assuming knowledge is non-material, what we are seeing is a possible non-material component of cause and effect.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mentat
My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided.
Ivan is correct. Science isn't even close to proving an origin of the consciousness.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided. [:D]
Why am I wrong?
Originally posted by Jagger2003
Ivan is correct. Science isn't even close to proving an origin of the consciousness.
I direct you to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Clement Dennett.
Ivan Seeking
Jul17-03, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Why am I wrong?
Because this is my opinion.[:D]
As soon as I have reviewed all of the related information I will jump in. This thread is so long I didn't even spot the source article the first time.
One thing that I am trying to determine is whether or not these photon pairs from the down-converter are considered entangled until measured.
Originally posted by Fliption
True but this leaves out step 3 above.
No it doesn't, since when you block a certain polarization from taking one of the paths, you have changed the quantum-bound photon.
Does the universe understand Calculus? It seems to because it obeys it perfectly. I'll let you simmer on that one a while. This discussion really is where we ought to be in this forum.
Know, I don't think the Universe understands anything, as a whole. I think that mathematics is just a form of logic, which is the way that the Universe works - but not the way it had to work.
Ivan Seeking
Jul17-03, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I direct you to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Clement Dennett.
One book is hardly a consensus. I am quite sure that no notices have gone out to the journals announcing that the mystery of consciousness is solved.
I can show evidence that consciousness continues even if no EEG can be measured. Would this scenario be explained by Clement's thesis?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Because this is my opinion.[:D]
As soon as I have reviewed all of the related information I will jump in. This thread is so long I didn't even spot the source article the first time.
One thing that I am trying to determine is whether or not these photon pairs from the down-converter are considered entangled until measured.
All quantum pairs, produced by such "splitting" experiments, are considered entangled. That should be rather obvious, since (as I've been pointing out repeatedly) you cannot literally split some massless particle in half, you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.
Ivan Seeking
Jul17-03, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
All quantum pairs, produced by such "splitting" experiments, are considered entangled. That should be rather obvious, since (as I've been pointing out repeatedly) you cannot literally split some massless particle in half, you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.
It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.
And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons. [;)]
Ivan Seeking
Jul17-03, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.
I don't know what this means. What is the mathematical meaning of splitting a wave function?
I can imagine other possibilities beyond whatever you mean here. For example, perhaps the incoming photon excites an atom in the crystal which then releases half the energy as a photon. It may then excite its neighbor to release another photon. In this way the two have a mapping but I think not entanglement.
Fliption
Jul17-03, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Well, they did, after all use those very words, and it appears to fit with their hypothesis, since their "knowledge" would have to change the photon (and it doesn't appear that this could be the case, unless the photon, at some point, posessed knowledge of our knowledge).
Understand the experiment first.
But they didn't make all of these different changes on the same beem of light (did they?), and so it needn't be collapsed an then uncollapsed.
Why didn't they? It isn't relevant anyway. A beam of light is a beam of light. A photon is a photon. If an apple falling from a tree stops half way to the ground and then just floats, scientists all over the world would be shocked wouldn't they? Would you then say to them "Why are you guys so shocked? Sure all those other apples fell to the ground but this isn't the same apple"? I doubt it. If you understand the experiment, you will understand that it is just like the apple analogy.
It seems as if you have once again focused in on my words of collapse and uncollapse and interpreted them literally to mean that it was the same photon when that isn't really relevant to the experiment at all. Just like you're doing with the other words. Context seems to be a problem for you when you read. Perhaps it is the short amount of time you are devoting to reading and responding. But if it continues on from here it'll be my fault. I'm going to have to be more careful.
As far as that third step goes, I'd say that you've not taken into account the quantum effect on the very polarization of the photon.
If a photon is being passed through a device that sets it's polarity to X, what other quantum option is there? There is no quantum effect of the polarization. Surely you give these scientists more credit than this?
After all, you have not "split" some ball-shaped (yet massless) particle, but have just split it's probability - so that it is greatly probable that it is in one of those two positions, but it is not completely "true", since nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world.
I'm not sure I like the way you worded this. I don't interpret it as "nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world." If I said earlier that a photon was nowhere, I meant "nowhere in particular", which could mean that a photon is everywhere! It is in both places. So it is present and able to have it's polarization affected.
I would like to just note that you are not just disagreeing with me Mentat. You are questioning the validity of experiments being performed in major university labs by professional scientists. Now there's nothing wrong with that in principal but I think it is something worth pointing out since my whole entry into this thread was to rebutt what appeared to be dogmatic bias by the originator. If I were you I would take alot more time to understand these experiments before responding. It's one thing to disagree on the notions of scientists in matters of philosophy but I don't have the guts to tell them their experiments are flawed.
To simply think outside the box and try to conjure up a problem that sounds good may be comforting but it seems somewhat like irresponsible philosophy. I think we have to take what science gives us and work with it.
Fliption
Jul17-03, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, since when you block a certain polarization from taking one of the paths, you have changed the quantum-bound photon.
Again, you have focused on the wrong point. I am agreeing with everything you've said about the EPR experiments. But that does not refute anything in these experiments.
Know, I don't think the Universe understands anything, as a whole. I think that mathematics is just a form of logic, which is the way that the Universe works - but not the way it had to work.
Do not gloss over what I've said. I can tell from this response that you "didn't get it". That's why I said simmer on it a while. I wasn't looking for an actually literal response on calculus and the universe. You're supposed to apply the analogy to the actual topic at hand and find the similarity. So take what you've said above and apply it to the implications of these experiments. Hopefully you will see why consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored. I've said that all along. But we cannot discuss it if people keep ignoring it because they don't understand QM..
Jagger2003
Jul17-03, 07:04 PM
Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.
Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.
http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html
Ivan Seeking
Jul17-03, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
...consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored.
It would seem that since this controversial topic [for more than seventy years now] violates our every bit of sense by implication at least, the opinions expressed are often highly charged. For some reason, it seems that the potential significance of these matters is mostly avoided. I find that many professional scientists [works for IBM instead of USC] virtually deny any mystical implications here. By mystical I mean something with a WOW factor of > 0.95; where 0 <= WOW <= 1 for all WOW. [:D]
I don't mean forever unexplainable magic.
[EDIT: Which is what QM seems to be right now!]
If by some views the implications of these experiments are true, this does seem to be revolutionary in any real sense. This is no less revolutionary than Newton's lesson that things fail, and things don't fail as described by the laws of physics; not by goblins and fairies. As was implied by Jagger2003; one potential implication of this: We may have killed Maxwell's demon with information, but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK. [:D]
This may finally boil down to an inconceivable, inexplicable set of equations that work without yielding insight. But if the goblins exist, then if we can ever understand this stuff in a philosophical way, we may be witnessing momentous paradigm shift for the human race. Really in any case we are. I think this is why many authors present their opinions as facts. This of course combined with the unusually straight forward and abrupt style of many scientists. I don't mean this to be critical. I only mean this as an observation from one person's point of view. This timbre creates confusion and I think impedes potentially grand new insights into that thing called reality. IMHO
And above all people like Mentat should be trying to figure this out!
Edit: Damnit![;)]
I have few questions regarding main 3rd experiment in http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm
1) why do they need fancy down-converters? why splitters wouldn't do?
2) What is the function of beam splitters 2 and 3 - why are they required instead of using mirrors to direct necessary beams to converge at common spots on detectors?
3) Cutting off idler1 from splitter 3. Are we supposed to assume that beams idler1 and idler2 do NOT interact AT splitter3, but would be only directed to ID detector? If so, then it looks fishy, as cutting off idler1 is equivalent to moving ID detector into that cutoff point, or simply making idler1 path shorter.
4) I assume that if cutoff was done between splitter3 and detector, 'knowledge' would not change, thus interference of signals would remain?
This somehow reminds me unstable electronic circuit, beam paths acting as conductors, wave photons acting as resonant AC current, splitters acting like feedback leaks. How crackpot would it be to suppose that splitters that are more like adders change some sort of space impedance on both alternate paths, and cutting off one of beams causes impedance drop throughout the whole circuit for a beam path that remains intact? Braking AC oscillator circuit loop and making it into DC static current conduit, only instead of free electrons, photons are used.
5) any hint on how to repeat such experiment at home? [:D] no, really, penpointer laser, mirrors, digital camera for detector. Would be interesting homework.
Jagger2003
Jul18-03, 02:15 PM
but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK.
I agree that they could be back. Of course, way too early to conclude anything, but it is interesting there is so little discussion of the possible implications.
Whether knowledge or consciousness, the non-material component would bring down the assumption of a purely materialistic universe. It would also raise the question of which came first, matter or non-matter or did they arise simultaneously. If one came first and if a non-material component is essential to cause and effect, then we would have to have matter arise from the non-material.
Then we would wonder what is this non-matter composed of and where comes its ability to impact matter with knowledge or will or intent or whatever. I suspect we would end up examining the consciousness for its unique qualities as the only known example of a type of non-material entity which recognizes knowledge, contains intent and will unlike purely physical matter. Then we might theorize some sort of overarching quality of consciousness beyond the individual consciousness to produce a unified experience of existence. UMMMMmmmm....No, we don't want to go down that road until it is absolutely necessary.
Of course, first we must understand the cause of a waves collapse.
M. Gaspar
Jul18-03, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Jagger2003
Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.
Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.
http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html
Thanks, Jagger2003, this is right up MY alley (where I generally get mugged by materialists). In fact, a few of the sentences are almost verbatum what I have been saying: "No scientific theory of the Universe can be said complete if it doesn't explain consciousness."
Still, at first scan, it looks as though this might be confined (and, being a panpsychist, I'm using the word "confined" advisedly) to human -- or biological -- consciousness. But no matter ...I'm sure it will be a good read. Thanks again.
By the way, did you read the introductory post? Some don't like the "C" word here. Thus, I have only been "auditing" this thread...that is, "receiving no credits" for keeping my opinions to myself. [a)]
M. Gaspar
Jul18-03, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Jagger2003
[B]Fascinating thread. IMO, the implications are revolutionary. Assuming knowledge is non-material, what we are seeing is a possible non-material component of cause and effect./B]
Now you did it: new buddy. (Careful: we are not among friends.) [;)]
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.
And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons. [;)]
If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).
Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spacial dimension).
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).
Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spacial dimension).
Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.
And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age. [;)]
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
One book is hardly a consensus. I am quite sure that no notices have gone out to the journals announcing that the mystery of consciousness is solved.
I can show evidence that consciousness continues even if no EEG can be measured. Would this scenario be explained by Clement's thesis?
Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?
Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.
I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.
And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age. [;)]
Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occuring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occuring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).
This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff. [;)]
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).
You response
I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.
sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.
You don't need to explain the difference between a probability wave existing over space, and splitting BB's. My first semester Quantum Mechanics professor already did that.
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before.
This is Mentat for: I've looked at the evidence?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff. [;)]
This wont be news at all, the Multiple Drafts model has existed since the late 80's or early 90's. That not everyone has accepted it is evidence that Science doesn't easily conform (as well it shouldn't).
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Your response sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.
My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).
Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".
Ivan Seeking
Jul18-03, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).
Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".
Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16? [;)]
So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though...
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though... Argue twice:
a) entangled
b) not entangled
both are nice options [:D]
Jagger2003
Jul18-03, 04:55 PM
Gapser, glad you like the site.
The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.
M. Gaspar
Jul18-03, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Jagger2003
Gaspar, glad you like the site.
The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.
And you?
Jagger2003
Jul18-03, 11:16 PM
From a science viewpoint, I will follow wherever the evidence leads.
Although I started wondering about my belief in a purely materialist universe when my father had a near death experience. From an agnostic/atheistic veiwpoint, I have spent three years trying to understand NDE's. My opinion is they are currently unexplainable assuming a materialistic universe. Today I would not be surprised if NDE's are exactly what they appear to be. So gradually I have reached the belief that fundemental existence may go far beyond what mainstream science finds acceptable to even consider. However I doubt if we will know the answers within my lifetime. But I keep my mind open to whatever evidence appears.
One thing I have learned over the last three years is to look very, very closely at the assumptions within science. What is stated as fact is often unproven theory when you look closely. Interestingly enough, studying NDE's has given me a different and more questioning perspective from many others that don't question the mainstream assumptions. This questioning perspective has come in very useful in many areas beyond science.
Ivan Seeking
Jul19-03, 04:47 AM
Since I just received a PM requesting this I am posting for those who are interested. This is one report about the issue of memories acquired in the absence of any measurable EEG.
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm
Welcome to PF.com Hypnagogue
hypnagogue
Jul19-03, 06:22 AM
Thanks for the info. I didn't ask in here because I didn't want to get things too off topic. [:)]
Speaking of which, this is a great thread. FWIW, I throw my lot in with Fliption although I'm really interested to see where this all will wind up. That said... have at it! *steps back*
Ivan Seeking
Jul19-03, 06:23 AM
But it does allow me to pass up Tom and become one of the top ten posters. [a)]
Oh I know...you're welcome Hypnagogue. Ok now this post is legit.[:D]
Ivan Seeking
Jul19-03, 07:28 AM
They are entangled. These sources reference this point as well as variations on this experiment.
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/2photon.htm
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/n2photon.htm
A comment on the internal workings:
"When a photon reaches the down-converter, it excites an electron into a higher energy level. But the electron returns to its ground state via an intermediate energy level, and emits a lower-energy photon at each stage."
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/19
Here are a few other sites that came up while looking for this information:
http://www.physics.iupui.edu/Physics/faculty/ou.html
"Besides squeezed light, parametric down-conversion processes also produce nonclassical states such as a single photon state and a two-photon entangled state, which can give rise to phenomena such as sub-Poissonian photon statistics and nonclassical interference that are unexplainable by classical wave theory. These states are also associated with the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of quantum theory. The problems that we are interested in are the nonlocality of single-photons and the EPR paradox with continuous variables."
Also:
http://science.exeter.edu/ssaltman/quantum/quantum.htm
http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16? [;)]
15, actually, and my mind is not completely made up on much of anything. I just sound convinced because we are discussing reality as it exists in a Quantum Mechanical framework, and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.
However, I think you are right, our disagreement really has to do with whether or not the photons are entangled or not. And, as you've shown in your more recent post, they are.
Fliption
Jul19-03, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.
I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.
This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)
"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."
It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.
Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted concensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it. But I am glad to see several people have jumped into this thread and all seem willing to explore this a bit which is what I'd hoped would happen in this forum one day. I haven't had time to thoroughly read some of the links provided by some of you but I definitely want to!
Originally posted by Fliption
I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.
First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.
Secondly, I have (as I've said enough times, I'm sure, to make people sick of hearing it) very little time to post. So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.
This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)
"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."
It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.
You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?
BTW, I'm sure there are a lot of (very respectable) texts that have other opinions about what's "really" going on at the Quantum level, but I just haven't run into any (yet) that explain (mathematicall, or at least logically) how what kind of observer you are could make any difference at the quantum level.
Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted concensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it.
Ok. That's very reasonable of you, and I'm sorry if I made it seem as though there were no contraversy on the issue. I'm positive that there is. However, it was ("was" being the operative word here) my opinion that, like Joao Magueijo's disagreement with General Relativity, the contraversy was just some scientists attacking the original principle. I see now that there doesn't seem to have been an "original principle", they (QM theorists) were just explaining what they observed to be true.
Ivan Seeking
Jul19-03, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
15, actually,
[g)]
Excuse me while I go shove this pencil into my head.
Maximus and Tiberius are no slouches either. Aren't they about your age?
Fliption
Jul19-03, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
[B]First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.
I was referring more to the links.
So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.
Hmm should I be insulted? [:)]
You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?
I'm sure the writer did. But I can't read the entire book in one night at the book store. I will admit to hopping over to the issue that this thread is about.
Ivan Seeking
Jul19-03, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Fliption
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)
"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."
This was a key concept taught to me throughout my college physics career. And EPR cannot be explained except through effen magic. Many of us live under the illusion that an equation is an explanation. bbl...
Ivan Seeking
Jul20-03, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Tiberius
The dual proton thingy is a bit more tricky. However, I believe it is much to do about nothing.
For starters, and going back to where this discussion begins on page 5 - the 5th post from the top - the argument that follows is nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the subject. The EPR paradox is a big deal. The explanation given by Tiberius completely ignores the point of the paradox. Bell’s inequality theorem shows that the notion of hidden variables is mathematically inconsistent. If we assume that unique values exist for the spin states [polarization] of these photons [or electron-positron pairs], and then determine the expectation value for the particles over the defined interval, we find that Bell’s inequality produces a mathematical inconsistency. In other words, we arrive at an answer that effectively says that 1 = 2. This is not a philosophical conclusion. This is a mathematical contradiction. This is how any beginning algebra student knows they have made a mistake. In this case, the mistake made is in the assumption that hidden variables exist.
We assume condition A [hidden variables exist]. We apply the equations of QM [calculate the expectation values]. We arrive at a contradiction. [1 = 2]
This is called false! Conclusion: Hidden variables do not exist.
I have also seen proofs [mathematical not philosophical] that uses the Cartographers Proof [that one can make a map using three colors I think…it has been a long time since I have seen this] to show that no hidden variables can exist. Again, this is not Capra making arm waving arguments. This is mathematics.
Finally, conservation laws require that either spooky action at a distance happens, or you violate the foundations of physics itself. Since we know the foundations of physics are well tested, we are forced to concede to a process that defies explanation but indeed somehow happens. Philosophically, this should be no more difficult to accept than even Special Relativity [not to mention GR] was 50 years ago...or now for that matter. After all, space-time is nothing but fairy dust. Prove me wrong. [:D]
The significance of this cannot be overstated:
Equations are not explanations.
Equations simply allow us to calculate the correct results.
Since we do get the right results, the equations must be correct.
However, equations that cannot be understood are called MAGIC.
Much of what I have read in this thread objects not to new age mysticism, dope smoking gurus, or the great cosmic consciousness, many of the objections are really denials of well established concepts in physics.
We have no known process by which this information can be mediated. Clearly we fail to see the complete picture. That’s what all of the commotion has been about for the last 70 years. If this could so easily be dismissed, it would have been long ago.
Edit: I should add that any arguments for propagation delay not only fail mathematically, but by now with today's technology, they surely fail experimentally. The state of two entangled particles and the intervening "communication" must happen at least at speeds much greater than C; if not instantaneously as is assumed. I would think that Heisenberg might allow a small window of Δ t, but not enough to account for the situation where the wave function collapses while the particles are separated by vast distances.
Ivan Seeking
Jul20-03, 05:26 AM
Geez I almost forgot. The challenge to philosophers is not whether physics is strange. Nearly everyone agrees on this…and those that don’t can be ignored. The challenge to you is whether it can ever be understood. I have spoken with many scientists who suspect that we will NEVER be able to understand QM in a philosophical way. Many physicists are saying that philosophy has no place in this. Many people feel that all that matters is whether we can calculate the correct answers. Do you buy this? Is this the only thing that matters...whether or not the fusion reactors works? Does understanding and insight have any significance to humans?
IMO, too many people are arguing defeat. Since we can’t figure out the TOE, or GUT, or M, or N or whatever is the latest, many scientists are starting to express concerns that there is no final explanation; that perhaps we can never understand this stuff.
I call that quitting.
I think this is the job to be done: Not to challenge that which is already understood [meaning not really understood], but to look for the synthesis in the madness.
Ivan Seeking
Jul20-03, 05:47 AM
As for consciousness, we begin with the question of measurement. As I have already posted, the explanations for the collapse of the wave function for a system includes Decoherence, gravitational interactions, and then we get into things like...
Parallel universes: This is physics. This is not new age mysticism no matter what anyone tells you. It might be wrong, but it is not garbage.
Quantum Cosmologists are arguing for some kind of paradox if we ever collapse any wave functions. They argue that the observer enters a superposition of eigenstates. Again, I don’t know why, but you can be sure that they have a damn good reason to make the argument. The source for the claim is no doubt credible.
Arguments for QM entanglement between the observer and the experiment, or some other dependence on a consciousness, both exist as schools of thought. After I do some review I will try to argue the points. I can say that to dismiss these claims as silliness is the height of arrogance. They may be wrong, but they are not silly.
Well, I though I'd get back to that which I was forced to abandon a month ago. Hope you don't mind...
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
For starters, and going back to where this discussion begins on page 5 - the 5th post from the top - the argument that follows is nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the subject. The EPR paradox is a big deal. The explanation given by Tiberius completely ignores the point of the paradox. Bell’s inequality theorem shows that the notion of hidden variables is mathematically inconsistent. If we assume that unique values exist for the spin states [polarization] of these photons [or electron-positron pairs], and then determine the expectation value for the particles over the defined interval, we find that Bell’s inequality produces a mathematical inconsistency. In other words, we arrive at an answer that effectively says that 1 = 2. This is not a philosophical conclusion. This is a mathematical contradiction. This is how any beginning algebra student knows they have made a mistake. In this case, the mistake made is in the assumption that hidden variables exist.
We assume condition A [hidden variables exist]. We apply the equations of QM [calculate the expectation values]. We arrive at a contradiction. [1 = 2]
This is called false! Conclusion: Hidden variables do not exist.
I have also seen proofs [mathematical not philosophical] that uses the Cartographers Proof [that one can make a map using three colors I think…it has been a long time since I have seen this] to show that no hidden variables can exist. Again, this is not Capra making arm waving arguments. This is mathematics.
Finally, conservation laws require that either spooky action at a distance happens, or you violate the foundations of physics itself. Since we know the foundations of physics are well tested, we are forced to concede to a process that defies explanation but indeed somehow happens. Philosophically, this should be no more difficult to accept than even Special Relativity [not to mention GR] was 50 years ago...or now for that matter. After all, space-time is nothing but fairy dust. Prove me wrong. [:D]
The significance of this cannot be overstated:
Equations are not explanations.
Equations simply allow us to calculate the correct results.
Since we do get the right results, the equations must be correct.
However, equations that cannot be understood are called MAGIC.
I'm sorry, but I still disagree. Just because common sense dictates that 1[x=]2, doesn't mean that it is mathematically incorrect. After all, as you said, mathematics just explains what's going on, and in the quantum world (which, as you well know, is very much counter-inuitive (electron/positron pairs appearing out of nowhere, wave/particle duality, superpositions, oh my! [;)])), we cannot rely on the common-sense (though not logically necessary) axiom that 1 thing is always definitely 1 thing (I use the term "definitely" to draw your attention to quantum indeterminacy; what I mean is that if something is "definitely 1 thing" then there is a certain state, and there is no such thing as certain states at the Quanum level).
As far as conservation laws go, you'd need to state the actual law that you are refering to, and your application of it, before I can respond coherently.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Arguments for QM entanglement between the observer and the experiment, or some other dependence on a consciousness, both exist as schools of thought. After I do some review I will try to argue the points. I can say that to dismiss these claims as silliness is the height of arrogance. They may be wrong, but they are not silly.
As I've already stated, numerous time before, consciousness is a macroscopic occurance. Now, quantum entanglement I understand. But quantum consciousness is foolishness, as I will attempt to show in a new thread (coming soon, to a Forum near you [:D]).
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?
I feel so alone [:(]
Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time [:D]:
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ? [:)]
Live long and prosper.
Fliption
Sep5-03, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?
I feel so alone [:(]
What exactly would you like me to respond to? I thought you and Ivan were on a tangent lol.
Ivan Seeking
Sep5-03, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?
I feel so alone [:(]
Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence. [;)]
Originally posted by drag
Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time [:D]:
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ? [:)]
Live long and prosper.
LOL!
My problem (which is apparently also Tiberius' problem, since he started the thread) is that many people take Schrodinger's "cat" analogy literally, and use it to show that an "observation" (which they (wrongfully) take to mean a conscious observation) is necessary to collapse the wave-function, and make the object take on a specific form.
Tiberius and I disagree with this (new-ageish) idea, and one of the reasons for our disagreeing with it is that consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon (much like life or individuality), and thus has no meaning at the subatomic level.
Yes, an "observation" is necessary, but not a conscious observation, as many think. In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence. [;)]
Well, I can't blame you for having forgotten about this thread. I had to do some "fishing" myself, before I could actually find the thing again (it had fallen to page 4). Take your time responding.
From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.
Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.
If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.
Originally posted by Royce
From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.
Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.
If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.
This is exactly what Tiberius was talking about, people taking layman texts as though they were just as good as the pure mathematics. This is not the case, and often facts need to be watered-down, before they can be explained in layman terms (I myself have fallen into that trap numerous times before). However, some new-ageish (Tiberius' term, not mine) books have also been written that refer to experiments, but interpret them as having something to do with consciousness - while the experiment doesn't indicate anything of the kind, when left to plain evidence without interpretations.
I think it would do you alot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.
Royce,
I have also read some of the layman texts that attempt to explain QM, and some of them are very good (I didn't want you to think that I was preaching against the publication of such texts altogether). However, I have also read some that were not so good, including a few that have cited the EPR experiment as proof that a conscious observer is necessary before the quantum entanglement can cause the particles to assume absolute states. However, after having read some actual text-books on the subject, I've learned that this is really not the case, as any energetic reaction could have caused this assumption of absolute states.
Originally posted by Mentat
I think it would do you alot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.
No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice. [;)]
Originally posted by drag
No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice. [;)]
What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.
Originally posted by Mentat
What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.
I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count. [;)] [:D]
Originally posted by drag
I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count. [;)] [:D]
Whatever, man.
I recognize Royce's sharp intellect and thinking ability, but I also recognize that: 1) no one can be an expert at everything; and 2) Theoretical Physics hasn't been (in the past) Royce's strong-suit (which would be more on the broader realm of Philosophy).
I never meant to offend Royce (good buddies that we are [:)]), I just thought he should continue to be open-minded enough to read up on such a complex subject. It's not like him to settle on a layman interpretation, IMO.
I have told ou before mentat that you can't insult me, we are friends.
Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The text books often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be seperated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be seperated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.
drag, thanks for the vote of confidence. It was reading Feynman's "QED" that brought me here to the PF's in the first place, loaded with a bunch of questions. Needless to say I rapidly became addicted, hoplessly so I afraid.
Fliption
Sep7-03, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.
Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.
My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong concensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.
I give up.
Originally posted by Royce
Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The text books often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be seperated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be seperated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.
First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.
Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).
Finally, what do you think consciousness is?
Originally posted by Fliption
Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.
My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong concensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.
I give up.
Look, Fliption, I'm sorry that I've exasperrated you, but you still haven't given me what I asked for: a direct counter to my reasoning on your experiment (the experiment that you posted about). Yes, people can say that conscious observation played an integral role in that experiment, and I can't (shouldn't) just tell them that they are wrong (this issue is, as you've said repeatedly, highly controversial, and not in any way resolved yet), but I can attempt to reason on the experiment to see if there is a - equally or surpassingly logical - way to explain the results of the experiment without consciousness.
If there is some actual logical problem with what I'm doing, please just tell me (don't give up on me yet; I may be a slow learner, but I'm still listening).
Also, I would like to solicit your participation (and the participation of anyone else who reads this post) on my new thread. (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5615) I think the responses will assist us in this and many other threads.
Originally posted by Mentat
First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.
Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).
Finally, what do you think consciousness is?
Go back and read Fliption's links located at the 7th post on page 5 of this thread. READ IT. READ IT ALL. Then come back and and tell us what you think.
Note: Playing the devils advocate does not mean being intentionally bullheaded and obtuse. It means addressing the issue in logical meaningful ways not simply repeating the same counterstatement over and over again. If your going to play the game play it right. That way we can all learn and clarify our thinking rather than getting exasperrated with one another.
If a person makes a valid point, say so then counter it with your own valid point don't just not accept anything anyone says and repeat your point as if it were the last word on the suject over and over again. If you have a question ask it, then thank the person answering it.
Playing the devils advocate for mutal advantage and the meaningful sake of the quality of the discussion is a lot harder than you think.
There is a lot more than just disagreeing with a point. Playing the devils advocat is a service to both the opposition and the discussion. The word "advocate" in this case means lawyer as in trying a case before an impartial judge. It is a lot of responsiblity and must be played seriously or you expose your self to fined for being in contempt of court, being thrown off the case and/or being disbarred for incompetence. Being the Devil's advoce one should be extra careful not anger you client or you may end up toast.
Originally posted by Royce
Go back and read Fliption's links located at the 7th post on page 5 of this thread. READ IT. READ IT ALL. Then come back and and tell us what you think.
I'll read it again, if you'd like, but I still think that Fliption should have addressed my counter directly (it's not like I want to repeat the same one over and over again, but it hasn't been answered).
Note: Playing the devils advocate does not mean being intentionally bullheaded and obtuse. It means addressing the issue in logical meaningful ways not simply repeating the same counterstatement over and over again. If your going to play the game play it right. That way we can all learn and clarify our thinking rather than getting exasperrated with one another.
If a person makes a valid point, say so then counter it with your own valid point don't just not accept anything anyone says and repeat your point as if it were the last word on the suject over and over again. If you have a question ask it, then thank the person answering it.
Playing the devils advocate for mutal advantage and the meaningful sake of the quality of the discussion is a lot harder than you think.
There is a lot more than just disagreeing with a point. Playing the devils advocat is a service to both the opposition and the discussion. The word "advocate" in this case means lawyer as in trying a case before an impartial judge. It is a lot of responsiblity and must be played seriously or you expose your self to fined for being in contempt of court, being thrown off the case and/or being disbarred for incompetence. Being the Devil's advoce one should be extra careful not anger you client or you may end up toast.
I know all of this. I knew it before I chose "Devil's Advocate" as a useful tool in discussions. However, I'm not playing devil's advocate when I attempted to show that the experiment (the one that you told me to go back and read again) can be explained without consciousness.
Then explain it and explain your reasoning and support.
Nobody knows, mentat, nobody. Top rate scientist and theoriticians are struggling with this and trying to explain it with new and just as contravertial hypothesis. This is not something that we are going to explain simply or by logic or common sense because it is completely outside the limit of human experience and previous knowledge. There is a story of a student coming up with a weird idea and presenting it to his professor (can't remember his name, may have been Gell Mann) The proff said yes its weird; but, is it weird enough? super symetry, string theory, superstring theory and field theory are all involved. It is a major effort just trying to combine QM and Relativity. To make absolute statements at this point is pointless. To say that anything is illogical or doesn't make sense is redundant and/or showing ignorance of the comlexity of the subject.
I personally get more confused the more I read and more aware of how little I understand much less know; but, as I said, nobody knows and that my friend includes both you and me.
Originally posted by Royce
Then explain it and explain your reasoning and support.
Nobody knows, mentat, nobody. Top rate scientist and theoriticians are struggling with this and trying to explain it with new and just as contravertial hypothesis. This is not something that we are going to explain simply or by logic or common sense because it is completely outside the limit of human experience and previous knowledge.
That is also a very good point. Human experience and common sense just aren't good enough to understand the quantum world. All we can do is describe the effects (and possibly not even all of those, only those that manifest themselves to our observations).
Anyway, I will attempt to explain how the experiment's results can occur the way they did without consciousness' playing a key role, but I cannot (wouldn't even attempt to) explain just how the quantum effect occurs, or even what - exactly - the effect is, because - as you said - no one knows that (but I like to add, "yet").
There is a story of a student coming up with a weird idea and presenting it to his professor (can't remember his name, may have been Gell Mann) The proff said yes its weird; but, is it weird enough? super symetry, string theory, superstring theory and field theory are all involved. It is a major effort just trying to combine QM and Relativity. To make absolute statements at this point is pointless. To say that anything is illogical or doesn't make sense is redundant and/or showing ignorance of the comlexity of the subject.
I personally get more confused the more I read and more aware of how little I understand much less know; but, as I said, nobody knows and that my friend includes both you and me.
You are correct, of course. My point wasn't really to prove that one point was less logical then mine, it just appeared to me that consciousness effecting something at the quantum level was just impossible in principle (and thus a stumbling block on the path toward understanding the quantum world). I suppose it "may" be true, but that depends on your definition of consciousness.
It is also predicated on the materialist view point that subjectivity and thus consciousness cannot effect anything material. To me this viewpoint is absurd at best as everything we do is preceeded by thought and intent even if we are not aware of it. (with the exception of our auto-response system, reactions etc., and even these reactions can with training be brought under conscious control.
Originally posted by Royce
It is also predicated on the materialist view point that subjectivity and thus consciousness cannot effect anything material. To me this viewpoint is absurd at best as everything we do is preceeded by thought and intent even if we are not aware of it. (with the exception of our auto-response system, reactions etc., and even these reactions can with training be brought under conscious control.
Well, actually, the materialist PoV is not that consciousness doesn't affect anything material, it's that consciousness itself is material.
Fliption
Sep11-03, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I'll read it again, if you'd like, but I still think that Fliption should have addressed my counter directly (it's not like I want to repeat the same one over and over again, but it hasn't been answered).
I'm not real clear on what it is I didn't provide. The only thing I have been unwilling to do is to try to give a class on Qm so that someone can disagree with it(As if I could do it justice!). While I'm not sure what is being asked of me that I haven't provided, it seems that the discussion is centering around the role of consciousness. Here are my thoughts. I, personally have not made any claims about consciousness so we aren't disagreeing necessarily on this point. But you keep saying that the experiment is claiming that consciousness has a role and I don't agree with this. The only thing this experiment has concluded (which is pretty much the only thing that can be concluded from the results....ie. no one has offered up any other conclusions) that the wave function collapses when their is potential for knowledge. The potential to provide information. Your preconcieved ideas about what all these words mean(even though you have never even heard of complexity theory) have you in a tizzy about consciousness. But to me, this experiment does not imply consciouness necessarily. What does it mean then? This is what no one is sure of and more research is being done to try to find the right interpretation.
If you just can't accept this, then the best thing you can do is to offer up your own interpretation of what happens in these experiments. Unless of course you think the experiments are flawed. In that case, I guess we really have nothing to talk about unless you can find some other experiment to discuss.
Originally posted by Fliption
But you keep saying that the experiment is claiming that consciousness has a role and I don't agree with this.
The experiment didn't "claim" anything, it was the experimenters that were making claims with regards to the effect that "potential knowledge" can have on the photon.
The only thing this experiment has concluded (which is pretty much the only thing that can be concluded from the results....ie. no one has offered up any other conclusions) that the wave function collapses when their is potential for knowledge. The potential to provide information. Your preconcieved ideas about what all these words mean(even though you have never even heard of complexity theory) have you in a tizzy about consciousness. But to me, this experiment does not imply consciouness necessarily. What does it mean then? This is what no one is sure of and more research is being done to try to find the right interpretation.
The fact that it collapses "when there is potential for knowledge" doesn't mean that it collapses because there is potential for knowledge. Anyway, I didn't just add this consciousness issue for no reason, it is implied. Every time you make reference to knowledge, you imply consciousness (especially when making reference to "potential" knowledge).
If you just can't accept this, then the best thing you can do is to offer up your own interpretation of what happens in these experiments. Unless of course you think the experiments are flawed. In that case, I guess we really have nothing to talk about unless you can find some other experiment to discuss.
I don't think the experiments are flawed; unless the fact that the experimenters were looking for the wrong thing counts as a flaw in the experiment. I am going to have to re-read the experiment (I've been gone for a while, but it's ok if you hadn't noticed [:)]) before I can offer an alternate interpretation.
Fliption
Sep14-03, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
The experiment didn't "claim" anything, it was the experimenters that were making claims with regards to the effect that "potential knowledge" can have on the photon.
No kidding. Experiments never claim anything; it's always the experimenter making the interpretations of their findings. Not sure why this needed to be pointed out. If this weren't the case then I would have been much more careful with the wording. But I thought you'd know what I was talking about.
The fact that it collapses "when there is potential for knowledge" doesn't mean that it collapses because there is potential for knowledge.
This is why you do different experiments varying the way it is done. You keep changing things, based on results, trying to narrow down the possibilities of what causes the collapse. This is done in these experiments and it is the "potential for knowledge" that it is narrowed down to.
Anyway, I didn't just add this consciousness issue for no reason, it is implied. Every time you make reference to knowledge, you imply consciousness (especially when making reference to "potential" knowledge).
I don't agree with this. If you have an equation with 2 unknowns then you have an equation that says nothing. However, if one of those unknowns becomes fixed, then by default the other unknown can be calculated creating potential for knowledge. It actually being calculated by a conscious being is not necessary. The point is that this equation now has only one answer and can now be solved. To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic[:)]. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)
I am going to have to re-read the experiment (I've been gone for a while, but it's ok if you hadn't noticed [:)]) before I can offer an alternate interpretation. [/B]
Please do.
hypnagogue
Sep14-03, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Fliption
To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic[:)]. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)
lol
"Figure of speech"?? Are you trying to say speech is a diagram, or a pictoral representation of the human body??
[;)]
Fliption
Sep14-03, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by hypnagogue
lol
"Figure of speech"?? Are you trying to say speech is a diagram, or a pictoral representation of the human body??
[;)]
I wax poetic like my scientific friends[:)]
Originally posted by Fliption
No kidding. Experiments never claim anything; it's always the experimenter making the interpretations of their findings. Not sure why this needed to be pointed out. If this weren't the case then I would have been much more careful with the wording. But I thought you'd know what I was talking about.
I knew what you were talking about, except I thought you must have(somehow) missed all of the implications (in the way that the summary of the results were written) to knowledge - and, thus, consciousness - on the part of the experimenters.
This is why you do different experiments varying the way it is done. You keep changing things, based on results, trying to narrow down the possibilities of what causes the collapse. This is done in these experiments and it is the "potential for knowledge" that it is narrowed down to.
Not necessarily. I wish I had more time, but I will make a real effort to get them read, since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.
I don't agree with this. If you have an equation with 2 unknowns then you have an equation that says nothing. However, if one of those unknowns becomes fixed, then by default the other unknown can be calculated creating potential for knowledge. It actually being calculated by a conscious being is not necessary. The point is that this equation now has only one answer and can now be solved. To me these experiments could simply mean that the universe understands math and logic[:)]. (before you go ballistic, I know the universe doesn't "understand" anything. It is simply a figure of speech.)
Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.
Fliption
Sep18-03, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
since this can't possibly be conclusive (it would be much more famous.
The reason these specific experiments aren't more famous is because they haven't concluded or found anything that is inconsistent with the results of other experiments. And even so, I have seen these specific experiments mentioned in readings elsewhere.
Yes, it is a figure of speech. However, the only conclusion that I can draw from your reasoning, is that (for this interpretation of the experiment to be true) the Universe must literally understand logic. The fact that the Universe doesn't understand logic (and neither does a subatomic particle) leaves this explanation in my "possible, but highly unlikely" group.
And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?
Originally posted by Fliption
And this is exactly what I was disagreeing about so here we go with the seemingly inevitable circle of responses in yet another thread. The universe does not have to "understand" math in order to work off of math principles. Does a rock understand erotion?
I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.
Fliption
Sep19-03, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that the Universe understood math, you did - or, at least, that's what I got from your reasoning. You said that when one factor becomes known (again, a reference to knowledge, which bothers me already but is not the focus of this particular post) then the Universe "fills in" the what should logically follow. The only way this could be the case (AFAICS) is that the Universe would understand mathematics, and this cannot be the case.
If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.
Originally posted by Fliption
If you take a triangle and make 2 of it's angles equal to 45 degrees, guess what happens to the third angle? It actually gets "filled in" automatically with no help from you.
Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles. No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.
Fliption
Sep22-03, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Perfectly reasonable, since a physical interaction would occur between both of the sides that I have changed and the unchanged angles. No physical interaction can occur when someone is merely "conscious" of the possible condition of a particle, and so the particle has no "reason" (please forgive my free use of this term) to change at all.
But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.
Originally posted by Fliption
But as I've said before and reading the article will confirm, someone being conscious is not what is required. What is required is the "potential for knowledge". A conscious person being around to see the collapse isn't required.
Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).
Fliption
Sep24-03, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Even removing the need for a conscious person, doesn't change the need for a conscious particle. After all, how could the particle be changed by just the "threat of knowledge". It's not as though knowledge - or the potential for it - are physical entities or anything (outside of the workings of the brain, of course).
That's what my triangle example was trying to illustrate. That a partcle can have a value fixed for it depending on whats happening elsewhere simply because it is obeying the rules of logic and math. Not because it understands those rules.
Let me also say that this is just a possibility as I see it. The actual interpretation of quantum experiments has been and continues to be up for debate. That was the main point of my posting in this thread.
Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".
I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.
Fliption
Sep24-03, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, Fliption, I don't think there's much more that can be said. I don't want to say "let's agree to disagree", since I agree with you that there are many different P'soV and that I had just been exposed to one but that doesn't meant that that's the "right" one. Even great Physicists like John Wheeler are of the opinion that "information" (whatever it is that they think that means) plays a role in all quantum occurances, so no one really "knows".
I will agree to leave the topic alone and just agree that it's undetermined, if you want.
Absolutely! But I would like for more people to start more threads on quantum physics. The fact that it is so unknown is exactly why I think it is interesting to think about it. I had thought that attitudes like Tiberius were part of the reason no one ever talked about it. But if we agree we have lots to learn then I would think there would be more topics on it here. But hey, since this thread started there have been many changes here and I think there is a forum dedicated to it now! A whole forum called "Quantum Physics"!
If a wave function collapse does require observation, the perhaps this is proof that God exists. If waves have been collapsing in a universe 7+ billion years old, who else would have been "observing"?
quantumcarl
Jan16-05, 10:57 PM
And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics. [8)]
Yo! At least the garbage alerts people to the study of quantum physics.
What's confused me is that when people say the Quantum universe is so very different from Relative universe in that things relatively appear so predictable in the RelativeU when they appear much less so in the QUniverse.
They site the constant and fast changing environment of the nanoscopic quantum mechanics and the slow predictable curves etc... of the universe on the scale we are more prone to observe.
What I would interject is that the larger scaled universe, which is considered relative, has a rate of change that is equal to its scale. The same applies to the nanoscopic scale where quantum mechanics is precieved to be completely unpredictable. The rate of change at a nano level is going to be beyond our synaptic ability to comprehend and only predictability models generated by math or whatever can be used to probe such rapid and seemingly unpredictable changes.
This conjecture disregards the overall nature of simultaneous occurances at a quantum level and I am only asking that those of you who are privy to the workings of the quantum theories to remember the fact that with a change of scale comes a difference in "rate of change" (also known as "time").
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.