Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

M. Gaspar · Jun 26, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jun 26, 2003

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He hurt our feelings.

Scroll back.

I was referring 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 · Jun 26, 2003

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

Royce · Jun 26, 2003

Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everything 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 · Jun 26, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
I was referring 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 · Jun 26, 2003

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 · Jun 27, 2003

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.

Royce · Jun 27, 2003

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 · Jun 27, 2003

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!

Eh · Jun 27, 2003

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 · Jun 27, 2003

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!

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?

Royce · Jun 27, 2003

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 development 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 theories 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 · Jun 27, 2003

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.

Royce · Jun 27, 2003

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 · Jun 27, 2003

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 traveled 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.

Royce · Jun 27, 2003

I have just finished "The Universe in a Nutshell" Hawking used the EPR paradox to really throw an curve. He has one of the photon get swallowed by a black hole 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 · Jun 27, 2003

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.

Royce · Jun 27, 2003

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 · Jun 28, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jun 28, 2003

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everything 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[/color].

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).

Mentat · Jun 28, 2003

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 · Jun 28, 2003

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 that's just because the words are vague. Just like the site points out.

Fliption · Jun 28, 2003

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 · Jun 28, 2003

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?

Royce · Jun 28, 2003

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.

sage · Jun 29, 2003

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 · Jun 29, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jun 30, 2003

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 that's 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.

Mentat · Jun 30, 2003

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.

sage · Jun 30, 2003

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 · Jun 30, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
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 · Jun 30, 2003

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 · Jun 30, 2003

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 · Jun 30, 2003

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 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 · Jun 30, 2003

Originally posted by Tiberius
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 · Jun 30, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 traveled 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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jul 1, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jul 1, 2003

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.

Mentat · Jul 1, 2003

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.

FZ+ · Jul 1, 2003

Hmm...
I think the photons bouncing off it is a bad example...

IIRC, from the way it is derived, HUP is not referring 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 · Jul 1, 2003

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.

maximus · Jul 1, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 that's 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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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 · Jul 1, 2003

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.

Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

Similar threads

Hot Threads

Publishing Physics Without Institution: Any Tips?

What do feral children teach us about the development of IQ? (moved to Discussion)

Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?

What is the deepest/most impactful statement that you have ever seen?

Have you seen my glasses? [Found]

Recent Insights

Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect

Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight

Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight

Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers

Insights Fermat's Last Theorem

Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective