Does Observation Truly Collapse a Wave Function?

[QUANTUMQ]

what is it that actually collapses a wave function, an observer? what constitutes an observer? also is it true that everything has a wave function, because if it does who collapsed the universes wave function
some may say wave function collapse only works on the quantum level but the universe was sub atomic sive at the time of the BIG BANG.

can resistance in space-time also collapse wavefunctions
if a person collapses a wave function by looking (observing) where does light come into the question. for the person to actually make the observation the light has to travel from the wavefunction to tge persons eye, what if the light is intercepted by another persons eye.
also how can light wave function collapse?

 

[Phrak]

It collapses?

 

[peter0302]

Is this a joke?

 

[DaveC426913]

"Observer" is a bit misleading; any form of interaction that measures the wave function will collapse it, even a photon interacting with the system (no observer necessary).

 

[malawi_glenn]

Wave functions collapses when interactions are taking place, just as DaveC426913 says. Remember that humans observe things by performing scattering experiments etc. (That is how our sight works, light is scattered from the objects, and our eyes detect the diffraction patterns)

And ALL answers will be written here in this forum, we will not mail you, youl will get mails when someone is answering here.

 

[Maaneli]

Dave and Malawi are mistaken in their answers. The existence or nonexistence of wavefunction collapse in QM is entirely dependent on one's interpretation of QM. Before one specifies what interpretation of QM one is working with, one cannot give a meaningful answer to the question of "what collapses the wavefunction". In particular, use of the word "measurement" is too vague even in textbook QM.

But your questions QUANTUMQ are quite valid. For starters, I recommend reading John Bell's papers from his book "Speakable and Unspeakable in QM".

 

[Maaneli]

In particular, read Bell's paper "Against Measurement".

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave and Malawi are mistaken in their answers.

No they are not. The worst you can claim is that they are premature in that they make an assumption.

The existence or nonexistence of wavefunction collapse in QM is entirely dependent on one's interpretation of QM.

I do believe that, in asking the question, the OP has declared which interpretation he's interested in.

 

[Maaneli]

No they are not. The worst you can claim is that they are premature in that they make an assumption.

Yes they are ultimately mistaken, I would claim (I have specific views on this matter). After you choose an interpretation within which to assess the question of whether the wavefunction collapses, you have to then justify that said interpretation is self-consistent in its treatment of "measurement processes". You also have to justify that said interpretation is not less fundamental than another interpretation, or that it cannot be derived from another interpretation. If it can, then the answer it gives to the question of collapse cannot be taken as a valid statement about what is mostly likely actually happening with a wavefunction in the physical world, as QuanutmQ is inquiring about.

I do believe that, in asking the question, the OP has declared which interpretation he's interested in.

What is the OP? In any case, I have not seen any indication of a preferred interpretation to work with, in the question asked.

 

[dreynaud]

Hi,
May be you should have a look to decoherence theory (see introduction of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0111/0111105v1.pdf ).

Decoherence is a general effect of a quantum system coupled with its environment (described as a heat bath).
Throught decoherence, coherences decrease exponentially with time. The decoherence time depends with the scale of the system. For small quantum system (say hydrogen atom) decoherence time is very long. For large scale system (earth/moon) decoherence time is very small.
The exponential decrease has been confirmed experimentally for mesoscopic system.

I'm not a specialist (the following should be confirmed by other posts) and I hope the following won't be too wrong !

Applied to measurment, coupling the detector to a heat bath yields to exponentially decreasing coherence between the detector and the quantum system under measurement. This behavior has been tested experimentally at mesoscopic scale and intends to explain/decscribe the decorrelatoin between the detector and the quantum system under measurement.

As is well know, quantum interacting systems become "intricated" under time evolution. However, after measurement, measured quantum system and detector (considered as quantum system) should be decorrelated (in Schrödinger's cat paradaox, the cat is not in a superposition of dead and alive state).
The decoherence theory does not intend to explain which value the detector will measure, but the decoherence between the detecor and the quantum system under measurement. This is the quantum/classical transition.

I may add the following personnal note that my help for measurment theory: every detector can be concieved as a macroscopic system close to a phase transition (Wilson chamber for example, photo-multiplicator, etc...). Interaction with a small quantum system yields to a small perturbation of the detector that implies throught time evolution a large number of degrees of freedom of the detector (because of its state close to a phase transition implying a large correlation length) : This results in a phase transition in the detector. Coupling the detector to a heat source seems then "natural" (not had'oc) since it is a fundamental component for a detector to be... a detector.

Hope this help.
The main element of the Schrödinger's cat paradox is now explained. The cat has 1/2 chance to stay alive, 1/2 to die and is never into superposition state due to decoherence; this is not different for a coin-tossing game !

The intention of the observer is of no use (however, if you read this message, it is abviously intentionnaly, and I write this intentionnaly... Observer acts on the world, but, observers can't replace god as Bohr could have answer to Einstein ! ;-D ).

The explanation for collapsing part of the question should be the following : after interaction between the detector and the system under measurment, taking decoherence intoaccount, the resulting state is a statistical (not quantum like) set of state where the detector indicate a value, and the measured system in the coresponding eigenstate (this is done throught density matrix). So collapse may have occur during decoherence process (I can't say more).

 

[ZapperZ]

Hi,
May be you should have a look to decoherence theory (see introduction of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0111/0111105v1.pdf ).

There's already a problem with this. Why are using a reference on decoherence that is coupled to "gravitational waves", something that is still not detected and still very much being determined? Aren't there other more well-established references in peer-reviewed journals that have better illustrations of decoherence without invoking unverified phenomena? Look in the General Physics forum in the Noteworthy Papers thread on at least a couple of them.

Furthermore, for this forum, only published references are allowed, not preprints such as those in arXiv. If you know of the publication citation for this work, that is what you must also include when making such references.

I may add the following personnal note that my help for measurment theory: every detector can be concieved as a macroscopic system close to a phase transition (Wilson chamber for example, photo-multiplicator, etc...). Interaction with a small quantum system yields to a small perturbation of the detector that implies throught time evolution a large number of degrees of freedom of the detector (because of its state close to a phase transition implying a large correlation length) : This results in a phase transition in the detector. Coupling the detector to a heat source seems then "natural" (not had'oc) since it is a fundamental component for a detector to be... a detector.

Please review the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" in case you have missed it. Pay particular attention to our policy on personal, unpublished theories.

Zz.

 

[George Jones]

Hi,
May be you should have a look to decoherence theory (see introduction of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0111/0111105v1.pdf ).

With respect to part of ZapperZ's post: if an arxiv paper has been published in a journal, often the journal reference is given in tne arxiv entry. This is true for the paper above, so

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0111105

is a better link. Anyone that wants to look at the full paper can use the Download section at the top right, or they can look in the appropriate journal.

 

[dreynaud]

I appologize for including my personnal views. I won't include them again.

I wanted to prevent natural questions on the fact that explaining classical statistical behavior by introducing heat bath (and so classical statistical behavior) could seem unsatifactory on theoretical ground.

About the link, I've not spent a long time to find it. I know Serge Reynaud as a physicist who worked on the experimental verification of decoherence. Please see references inside the article if you are interested more deeply by the subject. Search for gravitaiotnnal source of heat bath (the subject of the article I linked) is a developpment of the verified decoherence theory. I will abandon direct link to article.

 

[Phrak]

what is it that actually collapses a wave function, an observer? what constitutes an observer?

There's really no clear answer to this, as you can see from prior posts. You're question itself already implies that there are elements of physical reality associated with both the wave function and a process of collapse. In it's most rarified, non-interpretational sense, there are a small number of Rules of Quantum Mechanics, that when followed, predict the outcome of expreimental measuments. But in assuming elements of physical reality attributed to both wave functions, and a collapse process, one immediately obtains a contradiction upon introducing more than one observer.

 

[madness]

How can a photon collapse a wavefunction when there is no observer present? Particles are continually interacting with each other. What if one was to choose the system as the photon and the thing it interacts with? The only way I can understand collapse of the wavefunction is to assume that it is the existence of a conscious observer that causes the collapse.

 

[Marty]

This may seem like a small point, but I would be interested in a really clear physical example of a situation where the wave function collapses. I often follow these discussions and they tend to hover around generalities. Schroedinger's Cat is not the best example from my point of view because I can't imagine what the wave function of a cat looks like. I'm interested in an example where you could basically write the equation for the wave function, at least in principle, and then consider how it might collapse. Because I think sometimes there is a reasonable mechanism to explain these things.

 

[per.sundqvist]

The wave function could not disappear if its not the particle it self is annihilated. In a detection this is not the case. I think Marty has put a good question here.

Consider a particle in a long box or a plane wave. At t=0 put on the strong and local detection interaction at x=xc,

V_d(t)=-U_0\delta(x-x_c)\Theta(t).

Now, does collapse mean that the original wave extending over the long box is going to be localized closely to xc after a short time \tau? I think it is interesting to study this example. Perhaps I do it soon. Perturbation theory is not good enough.

 

[DaveC426913]

How can a photon collapse a wavefunction when there is no observer present?

This is why 'observer' is a poor choice of words; it doesn't require consciousness; it merely requires an interaction.

Particles are continually interacting with each other.

Precisely. And wavefunctions are continually collapsing. It requires some very careful (and only theoretically possible) tinkering to get systems not to collapse. And that tinkering increases in difficulty geometrically with the number of particles, which is why is virtually impossibnle with anyting but a couple of particles at a time.



Note though, that while the photon may have collapsed the system, there is still a system "wrapped around this one" so to speak. This outer system that includes two things: the original system and the photon. Until that system is collapsed (by another interaction) there are two superposed states this outer system could be in: one where the photon interacted collapsing the system to state (a) and one where the photon interacted and collapsed the system to (b).

 

[Maaneli]

Precisely. And wavefunctions are continually collapsing. It requires some very careful (and only theoretically possible) tinkering to get systems not to collapse.

You are still assuming that wavefunction collapse is an objective process that actually happens - but you have NOT established that yet. In particular, it is not clear what theoretical framework you are using to talk about an "interaction". And it is misleading to answer his question in that way.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are still assuming that wavefunction collapse is an objective process that actually happens - but you have NOT established that yet. In particular, it is not clear what theoretical framework you are using to talk about an "interaction". And it is misleading to answer his question in that way.

Feel free to contribute. I am answering the OP's question in kind, without miring him in a university course in QM.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Maaneli: Both my and Dave's answer are witihin the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the paradigm of QM, that is why we are giving the answers that we do. It is not missleading, it is just that we answer within the most accepted interpretation framework - the paradigm. Of course there are more interpretations of QM, but I think the OP (original poster) also asked within the framework of Copenhagen interpretation, hence - our answers will be within that framework too.

 

[Fra]

I think it's good to first ask what a wavefunction supposedly represents. I think the best view is to see it as relational information. Ie. it aims to describe the observers information, about the system.

It's doesn't "solve all problems", but it's good reading and a good start, check out C.Rovelli's
"Relational Quantum Mechanics"
-- http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002

what is it that actually collapses a wave function, an observer?

I'd say from the instrinsic view: new information. Does it have to be more complicated?
To ask, where does new information come from and why, I ask myself who is asking.

Are You asking

1) why a second observer (you are the first observer) perceives a collapse of the wavefunction of a system?

Note that in this case, you are avoiding the problem. Your wavefunction doesn't necessarily need to collapse. But you are not observing the system, you are observing a second observer observing another system.

or

2) are you considering that this second observers asks why it sees a collapse?

I think the second question is never asked like that, I see it as an extrinsic question. I think problems appear when we try to project questions to other observers, not considering wether they are constructible withing the intrinsic view.

what constitutes an observer?

Like others has said already, measurements and observations are "interactions". So any part or subsystem of the universe interacting with the rest of the universe can be seen as observers.

( But there are open philosophical question here that can be debated. For example, if the suggested interpretation of "relative information" is to be consistent a natural question is where this information is encoded, and if this information is encoded in the system that makes up the observer itself, then one seems to reach a conclusion that the complexity of the observer itself, limits the _amount of information_ it can relate to. But if you asks these questions, I think there are yet no established answers that everybody agree upon. )

/Fredrik

 

[dreynaud]

... it is just that we answer within the most accepted interpretation framework - the paradigm. Of course there are more interpretations of QM, but I think the OP (original poster) also asked within the framework of Copenhagen interpretation, hence - our answers will be within that framework too.

Please could you precise what you mean when saying that "interaction" causes collapse (within the most accepted interpretation framework) ?

QM postulates doesn't say anything about the source of collapse (except that it is measurement, not interaction that causes collapse). Moreover, since the problem of the description of the colapse arised early in the history of QM, it was admited that the linear evolution operator couldn't permit to describe the collapse (giving rise to the Schrödinger's cat). It was also admitted that the evolution during collapse was something non-linear and very complex, but I've not heard of a work that accomplished this program (even recently).

"non measurement" experiments are interesting when thinking about what is the "source" of collapse (assuming this makes sens).
For example, consider the Young's experiment (see Double-slit experiment on wiki). Put a photo-detector on one slit. Then ask what is the photon distribution on the screen when the photons have not been detected by the photo-detector ?
The answer is that the distribution is the same as the one obtained with only the second slit. This means that collapse has occured, cancelling the component of the wave function from the slit where we put the photo-detector.
Is-it then possible to consider that the photon has interacted with the photo-detector while the photo-detector hasn't measured anything (the photo detector has not changed...) ? What is the source of collapse in this case ?

 

[madness]

Are there any experiments which show that a wave function can collapse with an observer not present, due to physical interactions?

 

[dreynaud]

Are there any experiments which show that a wave function can collapse with an observer not present, due to physical interactions?

Well, you have two questions :

1/ Are there any experiments showing that a wave function can collapse with an observer not present ?

There are no reported experiment where there is no observer. The question itself is not consistent. (This sounds like a philosophical question about the status of reallity).

Note that it doesn't mean that collapse occurs or doesn't occur without observer. Only that there is no observer (so no result to be described in Physics !). 2/ Are there any experiments showing that a wave function can collapse due to physical interactions ?
Please have a look to decoherence theory which is an attempt to describe measurment process (however results apply in more general context).
Keep in mind the problem of non-measurement (I don't know any paper discussing this point in the framwork of decoherence);
Then you will have a good knowledge of the state of the art I think.

Is the interaction an element of the causes of collapse ? The general accepted opinion is that "it should" (not "yes it is!").

The scheme is still not clear enough today and is still subject to controversy. There are severals cases that still have to be clarified such as non-measurement that I focused in previous post; see also the 2004 beautiful book of Penrose(and refs therein) where he reports several experiments where measurement causes some apparently ("all happens as if...") backward in time effects. Those are elaborated experiment with correlated photons.

I can only here indicates what exists, and open questions.

 

[per.sundqvist]

Hi, I think the problem of "collapsing" the wave function is rather a physical process of spontaneous emission of a macroscopic wave (say 1dm) function to a local bound atomic state (say 0.5nm). That makes it look like that the electron transfers from a wave to a particle. But it is still a wave at its final state!

All you need is a small component of the initial wave of the bound wave function. Then the electron want to recombine to the lower bound state, and in that process light (or phonon) is emitted. This process is described by QED.

Example: electrons at high speed are injected towards a thin crystal and are diffracted and you see a wave-like pattern at a luminiscent screen of size 1dm radii. If you look carefully you see that each detection of an electron is point-like (there is some YouTube with it I remember), but statistically you get a distribution function, similar to the wave function at the screen.

Let the wave function be: \psi=c_0\Psi_0+c_d\Psi_d, where c_0(t=0)=1 is the part of the macroscopic wave function, and c_d is the "detected" part of the local atomic orbital at a position x_d on the screen. The overlap of these wave functions are then:

<br /> &lt;1\mid 2&gt;\cong\int \Psi_0(x)\delta (x-x_d)d^3x=\Psi_0(x_d)=\Psi_0<br />

We have then the couples Schrödinger equation:
<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> E_0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; -E_d \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right) \left(<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> c_0 \\<br /> c_d \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)= -\;i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; \Psi_0 \\<br /> \Psi_0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> c_0 \\<br /> c_d \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

where E_0 is the energy of the macroscopic electron and E_d is the lower bound energy at the detection site x_d. Now solving this with c_0(0)=1,\;c_d(0)=0 gives for the probability of detection at x_d; p\equiv \mid c_d(t)\mid^2, using \delta=E_0-E_d:

<br /> p\cong \frac{4\mid E_0 E_d\mid}{\delta^2}\sin^2\left(\frac{\delta t}{2\hbar}\right)\Psi_0(x_d)^2<br />

The probability is small, but proportional to \Psi_0^2, which is exactly the Copenhagen interpretation! The function is here oscillating, but including spontaneous emission to the bound state via emission of light, we get the detection and the collapse of the wave function, and not a oscillation "back" to the macroscopic wave.

 

[Coldcall]

Has any evidence ever been demonstrated through experiment which shows a superposition collapse or "decoherence" can occur *without* the causal interaction of an observer either directly or indirectly via entanglement?

If i may also ask: does anyone actually buy many-worlds interpretation? Does it not seem like a ridiculous waste of matter and energy for a physical system to keep replicating an infinite (or almost infinite) amount of huge universes which FAPP are exactly the same as each other except for some rather minor mundane singular quantum circumstance. As McEnroe use to say: "you cannot be serious!" :)

Personally having read what i think is an excellent book which accurately states the quantum enigma in understandable terms (Kuttner & Rosenblum's "Quantum Enigma") i think the jury is still out. I find the term "measurement problem" kind of amusing since it's a hell of an understatement about the true controversy which arises from qm. The heart of the matter and why modern interpretations try to eject the observer is because if an observer really is required then we live in a somewhat subjective universe in which obsevers play a central role. It would sort of contradict Copernican reasoning.

Is that fair assesment of the "measurment problem? And if the "observer" has been evidentially ruled out could someone point me to the relevant papers? Thank you.

 

[DaveC426913]

The heart of the matter and why modern interpretions try to eject the observer is because if an observer really is required then we live in a somewhat subjective universe in which obsevers play a central role. It would sort of contradict Copernican reasoning.

It also causes one to wonder how the universe could have gotten along before we observers showed up to observe it.

 

[Coldcall]

It also causes one to wonder how the universe could have gotten along before we observers showed up to observe it.

Hi Dave,

Yes that's a head-scratcher though Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic theory has a crack at it, and it neatly resolves both the measurement and the anthropic problem. The theory is pretty far out but that doesn't mean its wrong. I believe Wheeler explained it by considering the early universe was like a quantum system with a plethora of possible outcomes. Since life evolves in one of these hypothetical universes, an observer emerges which then collapses the superposition of possible universes into one real universe. So as in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, the later measurement does in a sense realize the historic reality. I agree its pretty far out though its quite an ingenious interpretation that not only could explain our relationship with the universe but it also takes care of that other niggling scientific coincidence - the biophillic tuning of the physics of the universe.

But i have my own theory about *why* nature might utilise qm from a practical point of view. It seems the relationship between observer and matter/energy is one based on supply/demand. Observers demand definition of matter and using the qm process nature can dole out energy/matter only as required. It would appear a brilliant mechanism for energy conservation. I imagine it as a well of matter from which we draw it into existence; as before we observed it, and according to standard qm, it did not exist or it existed in an undefined state of probabilities.

The quanta aspect of matter and energy also appears geared to conserving energy because values can only fall into specific discreet jumps. From an information storage point of view that's a way more efficient methodology for measurment than contiguous values.

So we see nature's prediliction for energy conservation in other areas of physics and biology so perhaps it also represents the *why* of the qm process.

 

[reilly]

But, indeed, we do live in a subjective universe; perceptions and all that. Now, Coldcall, I, in fact all humans are observers; we all perceive light, sound, etc... To a substantial degree, it is as if we all perceive the same world, and we take it as common sense that indeed we do. The variance of the "real world" as perceived by humans is extraordinarily small -- if it were not, then the evidence for any stable real world would be highly compromised.

It does not compromise Copernican reasoning in the slightest. Man, the measurer, shows up today in QM, etc, and showed up for Copernicus as well--knowledge about planetary motion. But today, there are no ideological guides to the interpretation of scientific data: we don't require the outcome to make man look good -- political and business data and interpretations are another matter.Science recognizes it's origins and core are subjective; it's a human activity, after all. However, over time, science has become increasingly committed to making its conclusions as objective as possible. More or less, we average out subjectivity. And we assume, at least in our everyday life, there is a real world out there, quite independent of us. And that assumption has a great track record.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Coldcall]

Hi reilly,

"And we assume, at least in our everyday life, there is a real world out there, quite independent of us. And that assumption has a great track record"

And that's why its probably a good thing that the macroscopic world behaves in that rational objective manner.

However i think its important that science tries to resolve the "measurement problem" even if it confirms materialist's worst nightmares

 

[Maaneli]

Maaneli: Both my and Dave's answer are witihin the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the paradigm of QM, that is why we are giving the answers that we do. It is not missleading, it is just that we answer within the most accepted interpretation framework - the paradigm. Of course there are more interpretations of QM, but I think the OP (original poster) also asked within the framework of Copenhagen interpretation, hence - our answers will be within that framework too.

There is no evidence that the OP was assuming the Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, many of the questions he's asking are questions that CI cannot even answer. This is why I think it is misleading to talk about wavefunction collapse without qualifying first that you are giving your answer in terms of CI, and that there are other empirically equivalent formulations that don't require any wavefunction collapse to begin with, or that do include collapse, but in a much more rigorous way. Also, what if he's not even familiar with the definitions of and distinctions between CI, GRW, MWI, deBB, and others? Then it's even more misleading to just give a vague answer in terms of CI, without even telling him that it is from the CI and that there are other ways of answering his question which are quite different.

 

[Marty]

Hi, I think the problem of "collapsing" the wave function is rather a physical process of spontaneous emission of a macroscopic wave (say 1dm) function to a local bound atomic state (say 0.5nm). That makes it look like that the electron transfers from a wave to a particle. But it is still a wave at its final state!

All you need is a small component of the initial wave of the bound wave function. Then the electron want to recombine to the lower bound state, and in that process light (or phonon) is emitted. This process is described by QED.

Yes, this is what I mean by looking for a mechanism for the "collapse". In this case, however, it is worthwhile to note that the interaction does not have to be confined to a single atomic orbital...the incoming electron wave can simultaneously excite atomic orbitals distributed across the target, and they will therefore oscillate coherently, causing light to be radiated from the surface. I think we then need to look for a mechanism whereby the distributed electron wave recombines within the target material. But this should happen by normal electron wave interactions, as opposed to any sudden mysterious "collapse" process.

 

[Phrak]

This is why 'observer' is a poor choice of words; it doesn't require consciousness; it merely requires an interaction.

Precisely. And wavefunctions are continually collapsing. It requires some very careful (and only theoretically possible) tinkering to get systems not to collapse. And that tinkering increases in difficulty geometrically with the number of particles, which is why is virtually impossibnle with anyting but a couple of particles at a time.

What interpretation of quantum mechanics attributes a physical collapse to anything but an observer?

Note though, that while the photon may have collapsed the system, there is still a system "wrapped around this one" so to speak. This outer system that includes two things: the original system and the photon. Until that system is collapsed (by another interaction) there are two superposed states this outer system could be in: one where the photon interacted collapsing the system to state (a) and one where the photon interacted and collapsed the system to (b).

This makes no objective sense. A wave is either collapsed or it is not, unless you intend to define collapse as a subjective process, removed a distance from physical actuallity.

 

[Phrak]

There are a several Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics, depending on who you read. Most seem to share in common the interpretation of the wave function as the probability amplitude of a particle. The collapse is a physical process that collapses the probability amplitude.

If anyone can explain how this physical process (collapse) has action on this nonphysical description of possibilites (the wave function) I would sure like hear it.

 

[Fra]

The heart of the matter and why modern interpretations try to eject the observer is because if an observer really is required then we live in a somewhat subjective universe in which obsevers play a central role. It would sort of contradict Copernican reasoning.

I think that "to get rid of the observer" would remove from the scientific ideals. There is no need to give up all order and expect random subjectivity just because one takes the observer view as fundamental. It may be a difficulty, but that's for us to solve, and I think this is more than just interpretations.

The story is somewhat similar in relativity. Every measurement is made relative to an observer, a reference frame. Two observers make different observations. But that does not leave us in random ambigouity, instead relativity comes up with relations between the subjective views.

So while there is freedom to choose observer, the relation between any two observers is not random, because after all they can communicate/interact with each other. This is what generates the relations.

I think the story is somewhat similar in the quantum world. So fundamental observer dependnence of observations, does not IMO imply total chaos.

But I still think that the quantum formalism needs revision, and it's more than just reinterpretations. I even think the observer view is the key to explaining many things. A new locality principle seems to naturally come in the sense that any observer bases his action only upon available information (ie. local information) - this can maybe even be taken as a definition of local. About causality, the sensible thing I see emerging is that it's related to locality in that it's the observers information" or lack thereof that determines his way of choosing questions. So I think the causality lies in the way of reasoning and asking questions, rather than one observation causing another. The overall result is that there is an emergent causality at statistical level.

I also think that when reformulating QM, we need to be more careful about intrinsic and extrinsic constructions. Just like the emission spectrum of systems are constrained, the possible questions a given system can ask are constrained. This means that some paradoxes appear when we ask questions that will in fact never be asked simultaneously from the instrinsic point of view.

I think QM needs revision, but the observer view is central. The question to me isn't how to get rid of it, it's what happens when two contradictory views clash - then I think we get interactions! So this is a possibility, not a pure problem as I see it.

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

Fra,

"I think that "to get rid of the observer" would remove from the scientific ideals"

Yes but that is why other interpretations were theorised. And it's not a coincidence that most of the other interpretations do try to lose the observer as a factor of causation for wave collapse. Many-worlds is a great example of an arguably crazier idea about reality except for one saving grace - it removes any essentiality for an observer's presence. Each and every QM interpretation is a statement of philosophical inclination because the maths always the same. "observers" are the problem for many.

"There is no need to give up all order and expect random subjectivity just because one takes the observer view as fundamental"

I agree. Ther is no contradiction in accepting the observer related qm reality, and the more objective reality we encounter on a daily basis.

My point is that there is a deeper significance to the observer controversy which is based on the implications that perhaps observers play a more central role in the universe than is comfortable for most phycists with classical mindset.

Yes i agree with your thoughts on the similarity of observer status in both qm and Relativity.

"So I think the causality lies in the way of reasoning and asking questions, rather than one observation causing another. The overall result is that there is an emergent causality at statistical level."

Yes that's a very neat concept and i think Henry Stapp has some papers along the lines you allude to above. Ofcourse he believes that everything is conscious and i have my doubts about that; but i favour your idea above with a interrogation-like relationshsip between observer/observed.

I would add to that idea that qm appears a very efficient method for relating information only when it is required, and in neatly discreet values only! Kind of like the rat pecking one of those automatic feeders. It asks for and it gets one pellet.

"I think QM needs revision, but the observer view is central. The question to me isn't how to get rid of it, it's what happens when two contradictory views clash - then I think we get interactions! So this is a possibility, not a pure problem as I see it."

Personally i think we won't get to the bottom of it until we learn more about whether "consciousness" - whatever that means -is the qm causal agent hiding inside the observer :)

 

[dreynaud]

About "Decoherence" I said previously that Serge Reynaud participated to the experiment probing decoherence. I made a mistake : It was in fact Serge Haroche.

Please see the article reporting the experience of observing "real-time" decoherence : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvL..77.4887BTitle : "Observing the Progressive Decoherence of the "Meter'' in a Quantum Measurement"

Authors: Brune, M.; Hagley, E.; Dreyer, J.; Maître, X.; Maali, A.; Wunderlich, C.; Raimond, J. M.; Haroche, S.

Abstract:
A mesoscopic superposition of quantum states involving radiation fields with classically distinct phases was created and its progressive decoherence observed. The experiment involved Rydberg atoms interacting one at a time with a few photon coherent field trapped in a high Q microwave cavity. The mesoscopic superposition was the equivalent of an `` atom+measuring apparatus'' system in which the ``meter'' was pointing simultaneously towards two different directions-a ``Schrödinger cat.'' The decoherence phenomenon transforming this superposition into a statistical mixture was observed while it unfolded, providing a direct insight into a process at the heart of quantum measurement.The pdf scan can be found here : http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20sorted%20by%20topic/decoherence%20refs/BHD96.pdf

 

[Coldcall]

There are a several Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics, depending on who you read. Most seem to share in common the interpretation of the wave function as the probability amplitude of a particle. The collapse is a physical process that collapses the probability amplitude.

If anyone can explain how this physical process (collapse) has action on this nonphysical description of possibilites (the wave function) I would sure like hear it.

Me too

 

[per.sundqvist]

Yes, this is what I mean by looking for a mechanism for the "collapse". In this case, however, it is worthwhile to note that the interaction does not have to be confined to a single atomic orbital...the incoming electron wave can simultaneously excite atomic orbitals distributed across the target, and they will therefore oscillate coherently, causing light to be radiated from the surface. I think we then need to look for a mechanism whereby the distributed electron wave recombines within the target material. But this should happen by normal electron wave interactions, as opposed to any sudden mysterious "collapse" process.

Thats right for the "old" time-dependent Schrödinger equ. But, I think it can go only to one orbital though. The probability Psi(xc)^2 describe a probability of going to "that" atomic orbital. Its a competitive process for a short time, which you perhaps could model with random numbers in a computer.

The formula I gave only give us a hint of what's going on phenomenologically, but explains the Copenhagen interpretation in a nice way. The real thing including creation of light and destruction of incoming wave function and rising of the atomic orbital, is described within QED theory.

 

[QUANTUMQ]

thanks for all the replies theve been ,nice to see the different oppinions.
my questions were in the framework of CI but i would like to hear some of the oppositions to the CI. when reading werner Heisenbergs `physics & philosophy` he dedicated an entire chapter to the subject but ultimatly deemed all opposition as materialists.
also probably one of the most difficult questions there is. how would you personally describe consciousness?

 

[Phrak]

Re copenhagen interp, I said, "If anyone can explain how this physical process (collapse) has action on this nonphysical description of possibilites (the wave function) I would sure like hear it."

Me too

In retrospect it aint gunna happen. It's a utilitarian fiction, for which you are convenienced not to consider the hard questions.

 

[Fra]

Re copenhagen interp, I said, "If anyone can explain how this physical process (collapse) has action on this nonphysical description of possibilites (the wave function) I would sure like hear it."

In retrospect it aint gunna happen. It's a utilitarian fiction, for which you are convenienced not to consider the hard questions.

I am more optimistic. I think it will happen.

This is part of what I'm personally working on but though it's mind-boggling it looks to me very promising. But I think that the mathematics of QM will change too, and the old formalisms will be understood as a special case.

What we need to do is to find the physical basis of the quantum state vector, and the hilbert space it lives in. I think both the state vector and the hilbert space are observer dependent.

Alot of people in game theory treat probability, as a measure of degree of belief. However belief here must not be confused with higher intelligence. I rather think that nature it's contains a natural measure. So given any state of information, it does seem reasonable that there exists a measure on the space of differential changes. I expect here we can define an effective hilbert space. But as I see it the hilbert space is more like a tangent space, and it changes. So the probability space is like a guide on the differential changes.

So I think that what "should be" the state vector, is defined subjectively in the structure of the observer. This is why one can not directly and fully observe the wavefunction conditional on other observers. The only way we make partial observations is by means of interactions, by which we can guess parts of it.

Another component is the "logic of correction". If you have a certain belief, based on your current information. The impact on new information, is that there must be some internal reorganisation that revises your belief. And here clearly, there must be at play some competition. You are combining one piece of information, the prior, with the new observation, what is the intrinsic way of combining them to a new opinion? Clearly this question calls for evolving a logic of correction, since a system that fails to constructivel handle conflicts will not hang around. So I think there is a selection here.

This is often attacked by bayesian logic, but there is more to it than that.

/Fredrik

 

[Coldcall]

thanks for all the replies theve been ,nice to see the different oppinions.
my questions were in the framework of CI but i would like to hear some of the oppositions to the CI. when reading werner Heisenbergs `physics & philosophy` he dedicated an entire chapter to the subject but ultimatly deemed all opposition as materialists.
also probably one of the most difficult questions there is. how would you personally describe consciousness?

Well i think he was right in a sense. Most phycists who obsess about finding some other causal mechanism for wave collapse/decoherence other than the observer are usually materialists. However, materialists are really in a jam because clearly with or without an observer there exists a prior superposition. Materialists if being consistent would need to argue that Schrodinger's cat is actually in a physical state of half-life/half-death before were look in the box.

I really have no idea what "consciousness" is. All i would say is that it if i were investigating a tangible link or common denominator between humans and qm I'd be looking into "subjectivity". If we want to prove for once and for all that observers have some special quality able to act as a causal factor in wave collapse we need to isolate whatever that thing is.

 

[Pythagorean]

Re copenhagen interp, I said, "If anyone can explain how this physical process (collapse) has action on this nonphysical description of possibilites (the wave function) I would sure like hear it."

I'll give this a shot, but I could be mistaken:

Let's say a particle is jiggling around quickly, and you hit it with a photon (that you will receive and analyze with a detector after it bounces off your target particle). The photon must be able to interact with the particle if you want to get any information from it, so it will change the state of the particle (and change it's own state, which you will then analyze to determine how the particles state changed).

But since you have hit the particle with a photon, you (for intance) slowed it down by taking energy from it, so you have collapsed the wave function of it's position (collapsed is a relative term that I would think is based on your instrument resolution, but it basically means the wave function becomes a dirac-delta function and your position is determined more accurately.

The physical process that happened when you collapsed the wave function of the particles position is that you slowed it way down. It's momentum wave function may have become broader in the process (uncertainty principal) but you've made the position of the particle more stable.

 

[Coldcall]

I'll give this a shot, but I could be mistaken:

Let's say a particle is jiggling around quickly, and you hit it with a photon (that you will receive and analyze with a detector after it bounces off your target particle). The photon must be able to interact with the particle if you want to get any information from it, so it will change the state of the particle (and change it's own state, which you will then analyze to determine how the particles state changed).

But since you have hit the particle with a photon, you (for intance) slowed it down by taking energy from it, so you have collapsed the wave function of it's position (collapsed is a relative term that I would think is based on your instrument resolution, but it basically means the wave function becomes a dirac-delta function and your position is determined more accurately.

The physical process that happened when you collapsed the wave function of the particles position is that you slowed it way down. It's momentum wave function may have become broader in the process (uncertainty principal) but you've made the position of the particle more stable.

Do you think that this happens randomly in nature without an observer or scientist firing the photon at the particle? And if so how do we get evidence for it occurring? How do we observer without observing? What a conundrum!

 

[Pythagorean]

Do you think that this happens randomly in nature without an observer or scientist firing the photon at the particle? And if so how do we get evidence for it occurring? How do we observer without observing? What a conundrum!

Yes, I do think it happens in nature. I assume it's random, but you're never sure.

Maybe this thought experiment works to solve the conundrum:

photons from our sun and a distant sun interact on their way to Earth where they are detected by us. The act of detecting them did not affect their prior interaction, but their prior interaction affected how they would be detected, and the detection does affect the photons after detection. (in all the interactions, the photon states are changed of course, or they would not be interactions).

So we've received information from the past, but we haven't affected the past by observing it. We've affected the photons that gave us the information about the past and changed their energy, momentum, and position to find out (to the limited certainty that we can) what their energy, position, and momentum are.

Now if we do this with a whole bunch of photons we begin to collect a more certain picture of the past without altering it.

If you're actually proposing that photons only exist because of our observation, I'll tell you why I think it's silly. Firstly, the word observation has lots of connotations with it, most of which are part of the human imagination (part of a necessary process for storing and utilizing information). The reality of it is, that the only physical meaning behind an observation is interaction. Interactions happen all over the universe, absent of a the human idea of an "observer", but really they're no different from the obsevation. If only our observations affected the events in the universe, then how could we have observed anything in the first place?

If a comet lands in your house and pummels you in your sleep before you wake up, do you not die since you didn't observe it? Do you hang out in limbo until someone else comes along and observes it? Wouldn't we be able to use such a principal to go beyond the limitations (physical laws) of the universe?

 

[Coldcall]

Hi Pythagorean

Good thought experiment.

"So we've received information from the past, but we haven't affected the past by observing it."

There is still some question about whether our observations can actually affect the past. No-one is saying we can travel/communicate backwards in time, but if one considers "Wheelers Delayed Choice" then it implies our "choice" of observations under certain ciricumstances have a backward causal effect. Actually its a facinating experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment

"If a comet lands in your house and pummels you in your sleep before you wake up, do you not die since you didn't observe it? Do you hang out in limbo until someone else comes along and observes it? Wouldn't we be able to use such a principal to go beyond the limitations (physical laws) of the universe?"

Yes but you have to remember that we know that quantum weirdness (for want of a better word) mainfests itself very differently or not at all in macrocopic objects. We also have to remember that "entanglement" or Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" is a backward in time effect because for all practical purposes the influence on an entangled particle on its pair is happening at a speed far faster than c.

We also don't know whether entanglement works on a far more fundamental level, in effect entangling all observers and matter in the universe.

 

[QUANTUMQ]

since two particles can be entangled, are the wave functions of these two particles entangled before they collapse? and is a wave function collapse perminent?

 

[Rade]

Why is this topic in 'philosophy' section of the forum ?