Does this experiment demonstrate that conscoiusness causes collapse?

[Demystifier]

One additional analogy that may be helpfull:
Assume that you have a piece of paper on which various properties of the system (like spin, position, momentum, etc.) are written down. However, each information is written down by a pen of a different color. Further, assume that you can watch the paper only through monochromatic filters. Thus, depending on the filter you use, you can see only red letters, or only blue letters, etc. Therefore, you can see only the information about the spin, or only information about the position, etc. "Erasing" information is nothing but replacing one filter with another.

 

[Frame Dragger]

One additional analogy that may be helpfull:
Assume that you have a piece of paper on which various properties of the system (like spin, position, momentum, etc.) are written down. However, each information is written down by a pen of a different color. Further, assume that you can watch the paper only through monochromatic filters. Thus, depending on the filter you use, you can see only red letters, or only blue letters, etc. Therefore, you can see only the information about the spin, or only information about the position, etc. "Erasing" information is nothing but replacing one filter with another.

Is this a property of measuring devices being Classical, but the system measured being QM? And yes... I realize I'm asking an adherent to dBB about a tenant of TCI, but I suspect you know the correct answer within that framework, and I don't know if that's a shared principle in dBB or not.

 

[Demystifier]

Is this a property of measuring devices being Classical, but the system measured being QM? And yes... I realize I'm asking an adherent to dBB about a tenant of TCI, but I suspect you know the correct answer within that framework, and I don't know if that's a shared principle in dBB or not.

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I think the answer is "yes".

Anyway, any attempt to explain QM through an analogy necessarily involves a classical picture of some sort. Of course, analogies are only analogies, so one does not expect them to be perfect. Yet, Bohmian mechanics can be thought of as a PERFECT analogy of QM. So perfect that it may even be true.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I think the answer is "yes".

Anyway, any attempt to explain QM through an analogy necessarily involves a classical picture of some sort. Of course, analogies are only analogies, so one does not expect them to be perfect. Yet, Bohmian mechanics can be thought of as a PERFECT analogy of QM. So perfect that it may even be true.

If you and Zenith ever had children together, we'd all be doomed, you know that right? I think it would be the rebirth of Bohm himself, but as a giant striding monster a la Godzilla. lol

 

[Demystifier]

If you and Zenith ever had children together, we'd all be doomed, you know that right? I think it would be the rebirth of Bohm himself, but as a giant striding monster a la Godzilla. lol

Are you saying that the final outcome is determined by initial conditions? You must be a Bohmian too.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Are you saying that the final outcome is determined by initial conditions? You must be a Bohmian too.

I made a snorting sound, laughing out loud at that. I'm not kidding, but apparently I'm a turbo-nerd!

Lets put it this way, I believe that you and Zenith could overcome even the fog of probability and pull a Bhomian out of the, um, hat. That, and let's be honest now, you'd send the kid, to 'de Broglie and Bohm's Summer Camp For Precocious Youth' and make them listen to, 'Mamma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Copenhagenists', and then read the classic, 'Where The Determinists Are'. :grin:

Edit: If you do have a Bhomian, I'll buy him/her a plushie of Laplace's Demon.

 

[Demystifier]

Actually, the favored song of Bohmians is Bohemian Rhapsody by Freddie Mercury (Queen). If you don't know why, see the lirics after the abstract of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702069 [Am.J.Phys.76:143-146,2008]

Now let us return to the subject of this thread. What Bohr would say about it?

 

[SpectraCat]

Actually, the favored song of Bohmians is Bohemian Rhapsody by Freddie Mercury (Queen). If you don't know why, see the lirics after the abstract of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702069 [Am.J.Phys.76:143-146,2008]

Now let us return to the subject of this thread. What Bohr would say about it?

Keeping with the musical theme, how about, "What's conciousness got to do with it"?

P.S. AWESOME title for that paper ... I couldn't stop chuckling about it

 

[Demystifier]

P.S. AWESOME title for that paper ... I couldn't stop chuckling about it

See also this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156104

 

[Galap]

IMO quantum collapse is impossible for several logical reasons:

1. Quantum effects are, well, quantum. That means that things can only take on certain values. Now, a conscious being like you and I is extremely complex and detailed, and its consciousness relies on quite subtle things, like the fact that a small piece of lead barreling through only one part of us makes us decidedly NOT conscious. In other words, consciousness is a sensitive thing, not either or, but more or less, a sliding scale. That's not how these experiments work. What if a dog was the observer? a Mouse? A Snake? An ant? A Jellyfish? This leads to point 2:

2. The bottom line is, we don't even know what consciousness is, so how can we say that something so subtle and macro is affecting something so small and micro? Why would something based on such large and averaged out effects directly affect fundamental particles? This leads to point 3:

3. Supposing that there is some definitive definition of consciousness and that making a decision on the matter is a truly binary thing, how could a single fundamental particle possibly have enough nuance and complexity to determine something about the state of about (upon calculation) 1.46x10^29 of said fundamental particles?? I don't know about you, but to me that seems totally ludicrous.

 

[DrChinese]

Then what causes what the experimenters claim:

Erase which-path information BEFORE backwall observation --> No collapse
Maintain which-path information until backwall observation --> Collapse

Muddle data BEFORE backwall observation --> no collapse
Maintain integrity of data until backwall observation --> collapse

If this source isn't lies, then what causes collapse has to either be the ability of a conscious being to observe the results, OR the fact that coherent data on the which-path information exists. There exists no other possibilities.

You might be interested in this, which does a better job than your original reference (which as far as I follow it is not correct):

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

Or if you prefer the source experiment itself, prehaps this will settle the matter:

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf

 

[jimgraber]

Backward in time or retrocausality also seems to solve the problem.
I wonder what Dr. Chinese thinks of this recent paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5057

But I think this belongs in a new thread, so I will start one.

Jim Graber

 

[Frame Dragger]

Backward in time or retrocausality also seems to solve the problem.
I wonder what Dr. Chinese thinks of this recent paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5057

But I think this belongs in a new thread, so I will start one.

Jim Graber

So, the Transactional Interpreation?

 

[jimgraber]

So, the Transactional Interpreation?

Yes, and other similar ones, particularly the one advocated by Huw Price.

 

[Dmitry67]

1. No, quantum eraser would not work if information would leak and dissipate into the environment
2. There is no collapse