Unlocking the Mystery of Particles in Two Places at Once

[excentricmonk]

Recently I became aware that in a controlled laboratory experiment one particle can be seen in two places at once. This has opened a door in my mind and I can't stop thinking about this. My question is, can anyone give me more information about this topic, or point me in the direction to find more info?

 

[Sojourner01]

It sounds like you've been led up the garden path by 'popular culture' references to quantum mechanics.

What QM does is state that particle's positions are not precisely defined. In effect, a particle isn't anywhere in particular until you catch it in a certain position. When you're shooting particle beams about, a particular particle can turn up anywhere - it's just overwhelmingly likely that it'll turn up somewhere very near the straight line through space you'd expect the beam to follow.

 

[M.g.f.s.n.]

From what I understand, the particle will act irrationally, and be in infinite places on the probability field (as stated above, a higher concentration where it is expected to be). The one thing that stops the erratic behavior is the simple act of observing it. Observing the particle makes it "make a decision" and end up at one point in the probability field.

 

[Epicurus]

Observing the particle makes it "make a decision" and end up at one point in the probability field.

This kind of statement very much adheres to the garden path.

And how can a particle possibly act irrationally?

 

[goodbye777]

that is so weird i just was flipping through a book about this, it says that when not seen the "matter" is in every possible place it can be but when seen it is in one place, to quote, "When unobserved matter is a wave when observed matter is a point" So the point is that you can't think of matter as a thing, acording to quantum physics matter is the possiblities of conciousness

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Physics News 626, February 26, 2003

...Speaking at last week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Denver, Immanuel Bloch reported that he and his MPQ colleagues have exploited the fact that the Rb atoms possesses two magnetic substates and have succeeded, by a further adjustment of the confining laser beams, to separate each atom into two entangled spatially separated parts. [continued]

http://Newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.626.html

If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can’t You?

Electrons do it. Photons do it. Physics legend Roger Penrose thinks he finally knows why you and I can’t do it too [continued]

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-05/cover/

 

[kvantti]

-- acording to quantum physics matter is the possiblities of conciousness

No, according to quantum physics matter/particles are quantas (= pieces, lumps) of energy of the quantum field(s).
The consciousness aspect is humbug and is only related to the Copenhagen interpretation that can be shown to be unphysical (since Copenhagen interpretation, by its own definition, doesn't tell anything about reality).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The consciousness aspect is humbug

I agree that the language used was misleading, but to say that it is all humbug seems premature since we don't even know what consciousness is yet.

And I know that people are writing papers on the subject, eg.

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory: Possible Roles of Oxygen Unpaired Electronic Spins and Neural Membrane Nuclear Spin Ensemble in Memory and Consciousness
A novel theory of consciousness is proposed in this paper. We postulate that consciousness is connected to quantum mechanical spin since said spin is embedded in the microscopic structure of spacetime and may be more fundamental than spacetime itself. Thus, we theorize that consciousness is connected with the fabric of spacetime through spin.[continued]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0208/0208068.pdf

Spin as Primordial Self-Referential Process Driving Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime Dynamics and Consciousness
We have recently [see previous post] theorized that consciousness is intrinsically connected to quantum mechanical spin since said spin is embedded in the microscopic structure of spacetime and is more fundamental than spacetime itself, that is, spin is the “mind-pixel.” Applying these ideas to the particular structures and dynamics of the brain, we have developed a qualitative model of quantum consciousness. In this paper, we express our fundamental view that spin is a primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness. [continued]

http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002827/01/SpinNature.pdf

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory: An Approach Based On Pan-Protopsychism
As an alternative to our original dualistic approach, we present here our spin-mediated consciousness theory based on pan-protopsychism. [continued]

http://scholar.google.com/url?q=http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002579/01/SpinMind2.pdf

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ivan, all these papers seem to describe their hypotheses as theories. That confusuion is perhaps forgiveable in the popular press but I find it hard to take it seriously on a presumeably scientific venue like the arxiv.

It is one thing to assert a spin-mediated theory of consciusness, it is another to give even the slightest evidence of it's being true, or even cogent.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's up to someone (you? the authors?) to show me that "it's not all bunk".

And in view of the -- um -- innocence of the OP post, and the nature of this forum, it seems a bit much to present this speculation as evidence that QM has anything to do with consciousness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not promoting any particular position or theory, but this is not all Copenhagen, and papers are being written on the subject by respectable scientists. What I am saying is that we can't rule out QM as the key to understanding consciousness. In fact, it gets a little hard to imagine how it could not be uniquely a QM phenomenon.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In fact, it gets a little hard to imagine how it could not be uniquely a QM phenomenon.

The implications of that reply are surely better exposed on the philosophy forums, where duelling individual's "hard to imagine"s are acceptable. Please Ivan, don't try to import that discussional ethic here. We have enough trouble with cranks who can do the math!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Selective quote - that wasn't the basis for my post. Are you saying that the study of consciousness is by defintion unrelated to QM? The authors of the papers seemed credible enough.

I should add that my first exposure to this discussion was in quantum mechanics. In short, what I got from it was the consciousness is a problem for physicists, not philosophers.