Telepathy: Rupert Sheldrake & Evidence from "The Sense of Being Stared At

[Ivan Seeking]

Specifically it was stated that userful information can do work. This means information contains energy.

It was something that seemed worth remembering so I chose to pay attention and increase my mass.

 

[SGT]

I already stated what I was taught in physics: Useful information contains energy. Again, this isn't my opinion, this is what I was taught. The observation and decision required for the demon to open or close the door accounts for the "missing" work.

What is the meaning of useful information? Is there useless information which does not contain energy? Who decides which information is useful and which is useless?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Useful" refers to the information being non-random. Random data cannot do work.

Edit: I don't remember how to determine the boundary conditions, but the main point was perfectly clear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't read up on this lately, but I would assume that at the deepest level this all ties into Hawking's information paradox.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I wasn't being selective, my objection is that you make unqualified declarations that are way beyond your level of knowledge...

No, nothing I say is "beyond" my level of knowledge. I am always speaking from the information I have at my disposal.

I think what you actually might be meaning to say is that I speak beyond my level of formal education. If so, that is true. I don't see what the hell difference that makes here in Skepticism & Debunking, if I got my facts from books or from a university course, as long as I have my facts straight. If you doubt any particular thing I say, you can point to it, and I'll do my best to find a respectable link.

that is unless you care to explain consciousness

Here you have shifted from the concept of a thought to the concept of consciousness. They aren't interchangable words.

and refute the solution to Maxwell's paradox.

This is a straw man. I never said there was anything wrong with that solution.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Specifically it was stated that userful information can do work. This means information contains energy.

You must be able to find a link, no? IIRC the "paradox" wasn't Maxwell's doing, but the ruminations of someone who came after him, and the person who "solved" it was yet a third party.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, nothing I say is "beyond" my level of knowledge. I am always speaking from the information I have at my disposal.

You also interpret that information and state conclusions.

I think what you actually might be meaning to say is that I speak beyond my level of formal education. If so, that is true. I don't see what the hell difference that makes here in Skepticism & Debunking, if I got my facts from books or from a university course, as long as I have my facts straight. If you doubt any particular thing I say, you can point to it, and I'll do my best to find a respectable link.

You make balf face assertions that you don't know to be true.

Here you have shifted from the concept of a thought to the concept of consciousness. They aren't interchangable words.

They are intimately connected. I shouldn't beed to explain this either.

This is a straw man. I never said there was anything wrong with that solution.

You refuted my suggestion which is based on this solution. I shouldn't have to explain this either. Enough is enough.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Finally, we calculate probability amplitudes from the wavefunction. You have no idea what you are saying.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't spot any free papers that discuss information and energy,but papers can be purchased. My information comes from lecture notes.

Balance of information in bipartite quantum-communication systems:Entanglement-energy analogy
Ryszard Horodecki1*, Michal Horodecki1§, and Pawel Horodecki2¶

1Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

2Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Technical University of Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

Received 16 February 2000; revised 19 June 2000; published 18 January 2001
We adopt the view that information is the primary physical entity possessing objective meaning. Based on two postulates stating that (i) entanglement is a form of quantum information corresponding to internal energy and (ii) sending qubits corresponds to work, we show that in the closed bipartite quantum-communication systems, the information is conserved. We also discuss the entanglement-energy analogy in the context of the Gibbs-Helmholtz-like equation connecting the entanglement, of formation, distillable entanglement, and bound entanglement. Then we show that in the deterministic protocols of distillation, the information is conserved. We also discuss the objectivity of quantum information in the context of information interpretation of quantum states and algorithmic complexity.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v63/i2/e022310

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the wavefunction and QED, the answer seems to be pretty much what I suggested by referencing Carlip's last statement in the quote. As near as I can tell, the following explanation is probably as good as any.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-11/msg0029749.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

As for the wavefunction and QED, the answer seems to be pretty much what I suggested by referencing Carlip's last statement in the quote. As near as I can tell, the following explanation is probably as good as any.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-11/msg0029749.html

I don't see what you get from the linked discussion. One poster seems to be making heavy weather from the fact that in QFT you resolve waves into normal modes (Quantum Simple Harmonic Oscillators QSHOs) and so (he thinks) only those have wave functions. The other has no better reply than that it is a matter of definition. More heat than light.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I worked a 22.5 hour day yesterday. I promise to do better after some sleep.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An answer is still forthcoming. I've just been too busy to spend any time on this.

It is clear that based on the models for collapse cited by Carlip, not only is the wave function alive and well, the measurement problem is not resolved; at least not to the point of a consensus of any sort. But the proper context for Feynman's comments is required and will be posted when time allows.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I finally had a little time to review this.

If you look at what he says about how light behaves the narrower you make a slit for it to go through (on pages 54, 55, and 56 of the paperback edition) I think he has explained the Young double slit experiment without recourse to "collapsing" wave functions. He's obviated the need for the concept of "self-interference" by explaining how a narrower slit prevents the photons that take non-conformist paths from cancelling each other out, which they will do when the slit is large enough.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. Here, Feynman is discussing an experiment which only works if we don't collapse the wavefunction. If we collapse the function by making an observation that yields position, then the effect that he discusses goes away.

There is no splitting of light into "half particles" that go different places."

This example has nothing to do with the example that I gave. I cited the experiment in which one photon at a time passes through a double slit apparatus. What is cited here is simply the fact that photons always arrive in discrete units, which is usually learned on about the first day of any modern physics class.

This is the essential quote

Originally Posted by zoobyshoe
Check out the pages 54, 55, and 56, and also his footnote on page 76. I am pretty sure Feynman has done away with the need for a "wave function".

He doesn't say wave function, he says that there is no wave packet which is an outdated concept that sought to describe a photon as a localized wave packet that could act like a particle. This has nothing to do with the wave function.

I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles."

QED, p 15

This does not eliminate the wave function. This again addresses the particle-like nature of the photon itself.

Edit: Generally, Feynman describes a method of alternate paths that adds up to what we observe. This is really a qualitative discussion about a model for predicting the observed behavior of light that in fact depends on the wave function to yield the proper results. This is why Feynman uses a little clock to represent the phase of the wave.

If any other mentors see a problem with my answer, please post your comments. My only goal here is to avoid any do-it-yourself physics, or bad or false interpretations of these complex issues.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What Feynman is describing is his path integral or sum-over-histories approach, which does not assume the Copenhagen interpretation and works with excitations of a field (wave packets) which are not outdated at all.

Dyson's report of what Feynman told him during their car trip out West in, I think 1948, sums it up: "The particle goes wherever it wants, including backwards in time, and you add up the [complex] actions on the different paths and they all cancel out except along the classical path."

Feynmann's path integral approach never does collapses, but rather computes propagators, and is still the favored method of quantizing a field theory.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What Feynman is describing is his path integral or sum-over-histories approach, which does not assume the Copenhagen interpretation and works with excitations of a field (wave packets) which are not outdated at all.

Interesting, I thought the wave packet concept died long ago. In either case, this [the reduction of the packet] is what he outright dismisses in the one quote.

Feynmann's path integral approach never does collapses, but rather computes propagators, and is still the favored method of quantizing a field theory.

How does this address the problem of destroying the wave-like properties of light in a diffraction experiment where we first measure for position?

Edit: Ah, backwards in time...smell.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, could we get a synopsis of how this all fits into the current models? If Feynman produces solutions without the need to collapse the function, then how does this all fit with the many schools of thought about collapse, and why isn't "there is no collapse" ever mentioned as one of the options - such as those listed by Carlip? Is this model another school of thought not mentioned? Is it somehow limited in scope, or even phisophically flawed...? How does this all fit into the big picture?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I have asked a number of people for clarification, but since none is forthcoming we will assume here that Feynman's model is another school of thought. Instead of collapse we get time reversed particles. I don't know how else to reconcile this notion with the rest of quantum mechanics, but I won't allow an amateur debate on this or any mainstream issue of such depth. This is a problem for the experts. Informed speculation for the sake of discussion is fine as long as the proper context is maintained wrt mainstream physics. If you wish to debate the proper interpretation for this issue, please do so in the Quantum Physics forum since this topic goes beyond the scope of this forum. [Edit: I would imagine that this is appropriate for the philosophy forums as well?]

The thread is open for discussion.

 

[PIT2]

The experiment u are talking about (by Grinberg-Zylberbaum) is only briefly mentioned in the paper. The details u are requesting arent in it.

I looked into that 1994 Zylberbaum experiment(which was mentioned as a source in the Quantum Superluminal Communication paper), and discovered that it has since been duplicated at several other universities with similar results:

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00029978

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14640097

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15165411

http://www.bastyr.edu/admissions/update/fall2001.asp?jump=3

The purpose of this study is to determine whether visual evoked potentials generated in one human brain by photostimulation can generate a correlated EEG signal in the brain of another human subject who is located at a distance and who is not visually stimulated.