Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[Mentat]

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]

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+]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Fliption
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...

Name three (implications)...pls.

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.

What's 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.

LOL. Good one!


"...Tell me about the rabbits, George."

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Hi Gaspar, It seems like you and Fliption have different positions...

Could be. I can't determine his "position"...I'm observing his speed.

...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.

"Toying with an idea" meanings thinking about it. Since I'm over 12, I don't think about "how cool" anything is...and there are very few I talk to about my notions.

For the LAST TIME...for those in the back row who didn't hear it:
my irritation with you was NOT that you think I'm a crackpot; it is because I thought (rightly or wrongly) that you were lumping me in with OTHER crackpots who were jumping on the QM "observation" misunderstanding. I was not doing so (jumping on it to bolster my speculations). I was asking a straight-out QUESTION as to what the implications WOULD be ...before having it explained that the scientists themselves chose a word that was guaranteed to mislead us lesser lights.

I don't really conduct quantum experiences myself, so I'm not sure what life experiences you're referring to.

For me to respond to this particular kick in the pants, I need to find the post of yours that prompted me to tell you to "Start looking at your life experiences."

A moment please...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Ah, here we are...

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 or determining reality in the sense that New Agers ascribe (other than their direct physical actions causeing such).

...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.

As you see, you were not talking about quantum experiments here. You were talking about "New Age" books that promote how "consciousness plays a role in determining reality."

I would use a different word than "determining". I would say "creating". And I would not say "consciousness", I would say "intention" (which is an aspect of consciousness).

Hence, my response was to my personal "interpretation" of what you were facetiously saying to Fliption(?) -- that is, "Intention plays a role in creating reality." -- in which case I suggested that instead of burning the books, simply look to your life experiences to see if there is "evidence" that your intentions have "created" your "experience" (the word I would substitute for "reality").

What I didn't add -- but will here -- is that you should take the next year and pay attention to what your intentions create for you ...then get back to me. (Yeh, I'm talkin' 'bout "synchronicities"!)

Meanwhile, although I feel like a little dog yapping to get the attention of a pack of BIG DOGS ... I at least do not have to apologize for being "off topic". You, yourself, imported my notions about consciousness when you started this thread ...which gives me license to yap in from time to time.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Name three (implications)...pls.

Well, I can't name implications. I can only tell you that there are implications to explore. In my post to Tiberous I narrowed down the scope of those implications to be either 1) Conscious beings define knowledge and therefore define the criteria which collapse the wave function or 2) Conscious beings simply discover the rules and equations that produce knowledge. At the moment number 2 seems to make the most sense. Conscious beings obtain knowledge through the use of mathematical and logical equations. Universal physics can also be modeled by these same rules. It probably isn't coincidence.

What's really going on?

Don't know. This is why more discussion of implications are needed. But I can tell you what is not going on. A particle's path doesn't become definite just because another particle has run into it, as the original post of this thread claims. All the experiments showthat in order for the wave function to collapse, 2 things must be met. 1) a change in environmental conditions 2) that produces information.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Could be. I can't determine his "position"...I'm observing his speed.

clever!

"Toying with an idea" meanings thinking about it. Since I'm over 12, I don't think about "how cool" anything is...and there are very few I talk to about my notions.

Everyone thinks about what's cool - they just don't use that word because they don't want to sound immature. Old ladies at tea parties have their own ideas of what's cool and what isn't, but they use words like, fascinating, proper, mature, repsectable, and acceptable. Since you seem obsessed with worries of people thinking you're 12, then I suppose we can use the word "interesting".

For the LAST TIME...for those in the back row who didn't hear it:
my irritation with you was NOT that you think I'm a crackpot; it is because I thought (rightly or wrongly) that you were lumping me in with OTHER crackpots who were jumping on the QM "observation" misunderstanding.

You are irritated with me? Sorry but I haven't been following your posts much to notice. In fact, to be honest, I didn't even notice anything about you or what you thought about things until about 2 or 3 posts ago. I probably replied to you before then but it was case by case and I didn't remember your name. Sorry.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Ah, here we are...

As you see, you were not talking about quantum experiments here. You were talking about "New Age" books that promote how "consciousness plays a role in determining reality."

Yep - that's exactly what I was talking about. And?

I would use a different word than "determining". I would say "creating". And I would not say "consciousness", I would say "intention" (which is an aspect of consciousness).

Ok.

Hence, my response was to my personal "interpretation" of what you were facetiously saying to Fliption(?) -- that is, "Intention plays a role in creating reality." -- in which case I suggested that instead of burning the books, simply look to your life experiences to see if there is "evidence" that your intentions have "created" your "experience" (the word I would substitute for "reality").

What do you mean? Do you mean things like, I "intend" to take out the trash, so then I do, so then the trash is outside? Or I intend to get a job - then I have a job? If that's all you mean then "duh". If you mean something more, please explain.

...Meanwhile, although I feel like a little dog yapping to get the attention of a pack of BIG DOGS ... I at least do not have to apologize for being "off topic". You, yourself, imported my notions about consciousness when you started this thread ...which gives me license to yap in from time to time.

OH! So that's what's going on. Here I am responding to other's posts and seeing you interjecting as though I was talking to you (which is ok by the way - just confusing). And I was thinking, "What is this guy talking about - does he know me?" So you think I've imported your notions about consciousness when I started this thread?? As I said, when I started this thread I didn't know you or your ideas from adam. This thread was started because the misinterpretations of "observation" in QM is a very common mistake and I simply had the idea to correct it here. In fact, even now I had to look up to remind myself of your screenname - "Gasper" - got it. Sorry for not noticing you before. It's hard to keep everyone and their particular viewpoints straight. Honestly, I guess I don't remember because I respond to particular statements and ideas - not people. Who you are isn't as important to me as what you're saying in any given thread. So, I often respond without even taking note of who the user is.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
What do you mean? Do you mean things like, I "intend" to take out the trash, so then I do, so then the trash is outside? Or I intend to get a job - then I have a job? If that's all you mean then "duh". If you mean something more, please explain.

Not exactly. And while I'm willing to lay down a few lines on the subject, I'm wondering whether this is the thread? Apparently, staying "on topic" is important to the mentors ...and I can understand why.

So you think I've imported your notions about consciousness when I started this thread??

My mistake...facilitated, no doubt, by the appearance of your first post immediately after I asked a question about the phantom QM "observer" on another thread.

Honestly, I guess I don't remember because I respond to particular statements and ideas - not people. Who you are isn't as important to me as what you're saying in any given thread. So, I often respond without even taking note of who the user is.

Alrighty, then. Henceforth I will realize that -- at least on these threads -- you are primarily responding to ideas.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
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.

No, the difference is that you blocked the idler photons. These photons were quantum-bound, and what you do to one, immediately affects the other. Surely you know of the EPR experiment, wherein an electron's spin is changed instantaneously because of it's being quantum-bound to another electron, which was being "observed" directly by the experimenters (at least I think that's what happened). However, this "quantum entanglement" is really just a product of the fact that they are not individual particles, but greater probabilities of the wave-function of one electron (or so it was explained to me).

My point is that you cannot literally (in the sense of an individual particle - which doesn't really exist in QM) split a massless particle into two massless particles, but you can split the probability wave of a particle (in the case of your experiment, a photon) in which case, whatever you do to one of the "halves" will instantaneously affect the other "half" (since they are both really the same "particle").

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the difference is that you blocked the idler photons. These photons were quantum-bound, and what you do to one, immediately affects the other. Surely you know of the EPR experiment, wherein an electron's spin is changed instantaneously because of it's being quantum-bound to another electron, which was being "observed" directly by the experimenters (at least I think that's what happened). However, this "quantum entanglement" is really just a product of the fact that they are not individual particles, but greater probabilities of the wave-function of one electron (or so it was explained to me).

My point is that you cannot literally (in the sense of an individual particle - which doesn't really exist in QM) split a massless particle into two massless particles, but you can split the probability wave of a particle (in the case of your experiment, a photon) in which case, whatever you do to one of the "halves" will instantaneously affect the other "half" (since they are both really the same "particle").

OK you're getting closer but you still aren't getting the full picture. As I've said, obviously the signal photons have been impacted in some way which has caused them to collapse. I understand this completely. But if you read through these experiments you can see that just "blocking the idler photons" is not what causes the collapse. The experiment can be set up such that blocking the idler photons doesn't collapse the signal photons at all. The only difference between the 2 would be that in one case, blocking the idler photons enables you to calculate information about the signal photons. As I said previously, the collapse of the wave function is not 100% correlated with blocking anything. It is 100% correlated with changing the experiment so that you can achieve "knowledge". Thus it is the changes in environmental conditions that create potential for knowledge that collpase wave functions.

When the scientists say they are not interfering with the particle I think they mean that they can hold the interference constant and get a different result. The only thing that changes in the conditions to create this different result is the potential for knowledge; not an additional interference.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
OK you're getting closer but you still aren't getting the full picture. As I've said, obviously the signal photons have been impacted in some way which has caused them to collapse. I understand this completely. But if you read through these experiments you can see that just "blocking the idler photons" is not what causes the collapse. The experiment can be set up such that blocking the idler photons doesn't collapse the signal photons at all. The only difference between the 2 would be that in one case, blocking the idler photons enables you to calculate information about the signal photons. As I said previously, the collapse of the wave function is not 100% correlated with blocking anything. It is 100% correlated with changing the experiment so that you can achieve "knowledge". Thus it is the changes in environmental conditions that create potential for knowledge that collpase wave functions.

When the scientists say they are not interfering with the particle I think they mean that they can hold the interference constant and get a different result. The only thing that changes in the conditions to create this different result is the potential for knowledge; not an additional interference.

Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?

Yes. I'm not sure I understand where the beef is on this knowing that the wave function didn't collapse. When the wave function doesn't collapse, an interference pattern emerges. Seems simple. Am I missing something?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes. I'm not sure I understand where the beef is on this knowing that the wave function didn't collapse. When the wave function doesn't collapse, an interference pattern emerges. Seems simple. Am I missing something?

I'm sorry, restate that please (didn't quite get what you mean, and don't want to respond without understanding).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, restate that please (didn't quite get what you mean, and don't want to respond without understanding).

Sorry. I was making an assumption that perhaps I shouldn't have. Let's start over. Please rephrase your question. I'm not sure I understoood it.

This question...

Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Sorry. I was making an assumption that perhaps I shouldn't have. Let's start over. Please rephrase your question. I'm not sure I understoood it.

This question...

Do you mean to imply that they can interfere with the idler photons, in such a way as to make them unable to "gain knowledge" of the state of the other photons, and yet somehow they "know" that they haven't collapsed the wave-function of the other photons?

Hmm...I guess I was asking if they were saying that they interfered with the idler photons, but didn't collapse the wave-function - in the first experiment. This is what you seemed to imply.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Hmm...I guess I was asking if they were saying that they interfered with the idler photons, but didn't collapse the wave-function - in the first experiment. This is what you seemed to imply.

No I don't think so. The very first thing they would do is probably not interfere with the idler photons and show that the wave function did not collapse. Then they measure the idler photons and show that the signal photons wave function collapses. The next step is what I was talking about. Where the measurement is made on the idler photons and then subsequently the information "erased". When this is done the signal photons show an interference pattern again. I will have to re-read to see how or whether this exact step was done in this experiment. But if you read through the article you will see it littered with experiments that go this next step. You may recall the "eraser" experiments? These experiments do exactly this. They interfere and determine the path of the photons moving through the 2 slits(I like this word ) thus causing the wave function to collapse. The photons choose a path. Then the experiment places an eraser of this information on the opposite side of the slits. The photons have to decide whether to collpase or not before it gets to the eraser. Once this information is erased the interference pattern returns. So the question in this particular experiment would be "How does the photon know that the information will be erased on the opposite side of the slits?" I don't ask this question looking for a profound answer. I ask it so that you can see what the point of the experiment is.

Anything else could have been placed in the path of the photons besides the eraser and the wave function would have remained collapsed. It requires more than just something blocking it or other particles to bump into. If that was all it took then it's a wonder we ever see an interference pattern. These experiments continually appear to show that not only are photons nowhere in particular but they are also nowhen in particular! The only thing that makes the photon choose a place and a time is when the conditions allow for information. Once the information is gone, the photon returns back to lala land.

What does all this mean? Who knows? But it's certainly not the billiard ball "common sense"(his words not mine) world that Tiberius painted in his original post on this thread.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
No I don't think so. The very first thing they would do is probably not interfere with the idler photons and show that the wave function did not collapse.

How can you possibly "show" that the wave-function didn't collapse? This is impossible, even according to their hypothesis (which postulates that their being able to "know" whether the wave-function had collapsed or not would cause it to collapse).

Then they measure the idler photons and show that the signal photons wave function collapses. The next step is what I was talking about. Where the measurement is made on the idler photons and then subsequently the information "erased". When this is done the signal photons show an interference pattern again. I will have to re-read to see how or whether this exact step was done in this experiment. But if you read through the article you will see it littered with experiments that go this next step. You may recall the "eraser" experiments? These experiments do exactly this. They interfere and determine the path of the photons moving through the 2 slits(I like this word ) thus causing the wave function to collapse. The photons choose a path. Then the experiment places an eraser of this information on the opposite side of the slits. The photons have to decide whether to collpase or not before it gets to the eraser. Once this information is erased the interference pattern returns. So the question in this particular experiment would be "How does the photon know that the information will be erased on the opposite side of the slits?" I don't ask this question looking for a profound answer. I ask it so that you can see what the point of the experiment is.

But the photon can't "know" anything! Isn't that obvious? Honestly! Please choose different terminology, because a hypothesis that require conscious photons is doomed to failure.

Anyway, I don't understand what "erasing" means. What does it mean to "erase the information", in this experiment?

Anything else could have been placed in the path of the photons besides the eraser and the wave function would have remained collapsed. It requires more than just something blocking it or other particles to bump into. If that was all it took then it's a wonder we ever see an interference pattern. These experiments continually appear to show that not only are photons nowhere in particular but they are also nowhen in particular! The only thing that makes the photon choose a place and a time is when the conditions allow for information. Once the information is gone, the photon returns back to lala land.

Whatever, but the information had nothing to do with it (AFAIU), since information doesn't even exist at the subatomic level. But, I will withhold further comment, until you explain what an "eraser" is.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
How can you possibly "show" that the wave-function didn't collapse? This is impossible, even according to their hypothesis (which postulates that their being able to "know" whether the wave-function had collapsed or not would cause it to collapse).

Yeah this is where I thought you were originally going several posts back. I do not understand this point at all. You know that the wave function does not collapse because you can observe the interference pattern. This is exactly the point. The photon wave function does not collapse just because it has hit a screen. It takes more than just a physical disturbance. The screen will show an interence pattern demonstrating that the wave function DID NOT collapse. This is just the basics of QM. You can go no further if you don't understand this.

But the photon can't "know" anything! Isn't that obvious? Honestly! Please choose different terminology, because a hypothesis that require conscious photons is doomed to failure.

Hmm you're a bit sensitive. This is just a figure of speech. Scientists wax poetic all the time in this manner. So you'll excuse me if I don't spend an extra 15 minutes trying to find words that will appease. I kinda expected this reaction which is why I said I don't ask this question to provoke a profound answer. I am merely asking the question this way so that you can understand the goal of the experiment. Whether consciousness is involved is totally irrelevant to this point anyway.

And let me also suggest that once you understand this stuff NOTHING is obvious. This is really the whole point of my entry into this thread. This "clarification" has oversimplfied QM to the point that it's just wrong. If you disagree then you will have to say why. Saying it is obvious will not work.

Anyway, I don't understand what "erasing" means. What does it mean to "erase the information", in this experiment?

This is clearly spelled out in the experiments.

Whatever, but the information had nothing to do with it (AFAIU), since information doesn't even exist at the subatomic level. But, I will withhold further comment, until you explain what an "eraser" is. [/B]

Then you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with every QM experiment that's been done. All I can say is that you need to be much more thorough at reading about this stuff. Spend some time with it objectively. Leave your pre-conceptions about what is "obvious" behind. If you don't know what the concept of an eraser is then you don't understand enough about the experiments to make the statements you're making.

I say go try to understand it and then let's talk about what it means. It is much more efficient for me to provide links to information and then we discuss it. The details of the experiments speak for themselves. You have to understand that much before we can talk about what it means and what it doesn't mean.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah this is where I thought you were originally going several posts back. I do not understand this point at all. You know that the wave function does not collapse because you can observe the interference pattern. This is exactly the point. The photon wave function does not collapse just because it has hit a screen. It takes more than just a physical disturbance. The screen will show an interence pattern demonstrating that the wave function DID NOT collapse. This is just the basics of QM. You can go no further if you don't understand this.

No, I understand this just fine, but doesn't it contradict their own assumption (that their "knowledge" of the state of the wave-function causes it to collapse)?

Hmm you're a bit sensitive. This is just a figure of speech. Scientists wax poetic all the time in this manner. So you'll excuse me if I don't spend an extra 15 minutes trying to find words that will appease. I kinda expected this reaction which is why I said I don't ask this question to provoke a profound answer. I am merely asking the question this way so that you can understand the goal of the experiment. Whether consciousness is involved is totally irrelevant to this point anyway.

No it's not, since you are implying that the photon changes "when threatened" by the possibility of being "known". This is an example of foresight, and it takes consciousness to have foresight. Please note: this is not a semantic argument, you can try to use other words if you want, but it won't change the fact that they are implying a photon's having "knowledge".

And let me also suggest that once you understand this stuff NOTHING is obvious. This is really the whole point of my entry into this thread. This "clarification" has oversimplfied QM to the point that it's just wrong. If you disagree then you will have to say why. Saying it is obvious will not work.

Well, I understand that we shouldn't oversimplify QM, and that it is really inconceivable, but I still don't see where Tiberius got anything wrong.

Okay, I will say why I disagree that Tiberius is wrong: The actual textbooks on QM agree with him. That's basically it, though I also happen to know a bit about consciousness and knowledge now - that they are macroscopic phenomena and couldn't possibly have an affect on the subatomic realm (where the brain is composed of exactly the same things as a rock).

This is clearly spelled out in the experiments.

When will people understand that I get one hour on the internet, to do everything that I have to do (mainly PFs, but I am also involved in trying to find some therapies for my friends dying wife (she has breast cancer that is in metastasis )). Please, if you cannot explain what an "eraser" is, just say so. If you can, then do it. I don't have time to refer to the links. Sorry.

Then you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with every QM experiment that's been done.

In what way?! Information is a product of the workings of computers (be the organic or otherwise). But all of these computing devices (including the brain) are composed of subatomic particles. Therefore, how is a photon to distinguish an electron that happens to belong to a brain, from one that happens to belong to a piece of seaweed?

Also, take the experiment that we are discussing, for example: They said that they had "split the photons", when you obviously cannot split a massless particle into smaller pieces - thus, what it means to "split the particle" is to split it's probability, so that it is most probably in those two different directions. If you have not understood this (quantum entanglement) by now, then it is you who needs to do more study (and layman texts are probably not the best place - no offense).

All I can say is that you need to be much more thorough at reading about this stuff.

I will continue to read about "this stuff", but I won't rely on layman texts to do so, since they can only ever be partially accurate, and are usually reliant on analogy. Think of how much havoc the Schrodinger's Cat analogy caused. Instead of viewing QM as a theory of particles - which is what it is - they viewed it as a theory where cats are only alive when we're looking at them (an interpretation that was certainly not Schrodinger's goal).

Spend some time with it objectively. Leave your pre-conceptions about what is "obvious" behind. If you don't know what the concept of an eraser is then you don't understand enough about the experiments to make the statements you're making.

Well then could you please enlighten me, as to what an eraser is? I don't like when people make statement such as the above (quoted), they sound like they are dodging (or, rather, avoiding giving me an explanation since they themselves don't understand it). I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but "do more research" comments (without some kind of explanation) are usually dodges.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I understand this just fine, but doesn't it contradict their own assumption (that their "knowledge" of the state of the wave-function causes it to collapse)?

I am still not following. Please be more specific about what you're question is here. I see no contradiction. If it is there, then tell me what it is exactly.

No it's not, since you are implying that the photon changes "when threatened" by the possibility of being "known". This is an example of foresight, and it takes consciousness to have foresight. Please note: this is not a semantic argument, you can try to use other words if you want, but it won't change the fact that they are implying a photon's having "knowledge".

Ahhh. Now I see where the problem is. You cannot respond to the experiments. You just don't intuitively like what you "think" they imply based on what I'm saying. Well they don't imply any of that necessarily. I have made a few statements several pages back about what I think the implications could be. But that's a discussion that belongs in this philosophy forum if we can ever get people past the classical physics dogma.

Well, I understand that we shouldn't oversimplify QM, and that it is really inconceivable, but I still don't see where Tiberius got anything wrong.

Because he believes what you believe. Thats the bottom line apparently. I have shown you text where what Tiberius is saying is just wrong, but you won't read it or refuse to understand it. What else can I do? If I tell you what it says you'll just do what you're doing now. You'll just tell me it's laymans text and ignore it. If the text is wrong then point specifically to the reason why. Picking at my choice of words as I oblige your time constraints is not convincing.

Okay, I will say why I disagree that Tiberius is wrong: The actual textbooks on QM agree with him. That's basically it, though I also happen to know a bit about consciousness and knowledge now - that they are macroscopic phenomena and couldn't possibly have an affect on the subatomic realm (where the brain is composed of exactly the same things as a rock).

Consciousness need not have anything to do with it. These assumptions are getting in your way of understanding, I think.

When will people understand that I get one hour on the internet, to do everything that I have to do (mainly PFs, but I am also involved in trying to find some therapies for my friends dying wife (she has breast cancer that is in metastasis )). Please, if you cannot explain what an "eraser" is, just say so. If you can, then do it. I don't have time to refer to the links. Sorry.

I can explain what an eraser is. I assure you I would not be saying that Tiberius is inaccurate if I couldn't.

In what way?! Information is a product of the workings of computers (be the organic or otherwise). But all of these computing devices (including the brain) are composed of subatomic particles. Therefore, how is a photon to distinguish an electron that happens to belong to a brain, from one that happens to belong to a piece of seaweed?

Here are more presumptions about what you "think" the experiments imply. Let go of these bias' and just read. Photons are not proved or implied to be conscious in any way by anything that I have linked. I think that you are assuming that these experiments imply some sort of conscious connection and you have the opinion that this couldn't possibly be true so you are just closed off to what the experiments are saying. Free your mind! Forget the conscous stuff and approach with an attitude of inquisition.

Also, take the experiment that we are discussing, for example: They said that they had "split the photons", when you obviously cannot split a massless particle into smaller pieces - thus, what it means to "split the particle" is to split it's probability, so that it is most probably in those two different directions. If you have not understood this (quantum entanglement) by now, then it is you who needs to do more study (and layman texts are probably not the best place - no offense).

And I bet you think the photon is really there too? You think the probability for it's position is just because we can't know where it is right? Not because it isn't really "someplace"? Is this what you think? I may just ask you to explain Qm as you see it. That might help quite a bit. But if it is nothing but an extension of classical physics at the sub atomic level, then I'm likely to say it's wrong.

I will continue to read about "this stuff", but I won't rely on layman texts to do so, since they can only ever be partially accurate, and are usually reliant on analogy. Think of how much havoc the Schrodinger's Cat analogy caused. Instead of viewing QM as a theory of particles - which is what it is - they viewed it as a theory where cats are only alive when we're looking at them (an interpretation that was certainly not Schrodinger's goal).

You haven't even read it so how can you consider it to be laymans text? And if you have read it you have not responded to it specifically. All you've done is respond that what I'm telling you contradicts what you think, therefore it must be wrong.

And if it is laymans text then why ask me what it means?

Well then could you please enlighten me, as to what an eraser is? I don't like when people make statement such as the above (quoted), they sound like they are dodging (or, rather, avoiding giving me an explanation since they themselves don't understand it). I'm not saying that that's what you are doing, but "do more research" comments (without some kind of explanation) are usually dodges. [/B]

Gulp. Dodging? Heh. I have done nothing but lay out my argument for you. I have provided text for you to pick apart. How could I be dodging? If you want to understand the experiments, including the eraser, then go read the text provided. I can sympathize with time contraints but I don't think you're time prorities ought to be the basis for my consideration as a dodger.

Now I could explain to you what the eraser is but the honest to god truth is that I don't think it would matter as far as your opinion is concerned. I suspect we have some semantic problems here anyway because I still cannot understand the question at the top of this thread that you asked. This seems like a basic understand of QM. We can't progress at all until we get that straight. Why don't you just explain what you think QM is? How abbout explaining the 2 slit experiment and explain what's happening as you go?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well I need to read the entire thread but the discussion is all too familiar: Fliption is right. Sorry Mentat, but I have seen this problem before. The empiricists point of view is still alive, but you are struggling to breath under the weight of the evidence.

I recently made a survey of this issue of measurement and deeper interpretations. The fact is, the greatest minds in science are all over the board. Here is an excerpt from a letter written to a friend. Bare in mind that sub catagories of each subject are also found.

@A: Murray Gell-Mann

@Q: Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into
believing that the problem [of the interpretation of quantum mechanics] had been solved fifty years ago.

@R: Acceptance speech Noble Prize (1976)



It seems that tempers haven't calmed much in 50 years. Consider Heisenberg's comment on the subject from 1927:

"I remember that it ended with my breaking out in tears because I just couldn't stand this pressure from Bohr"

Here is the thing that most surprises me: The arguments about what causes the collapse of a quantum wave function - the definition of "measurement" - are still all over the board. Of course, Bohr's decedents still hold that it doesn't matter. All that matters are the numbers. This is fine for empiricists, but what will the theoreticians do? Really though, this seems to ignore the requirement for a complete theory. Penrose and friends argue that gravity acts to force Schrödinger's equations non-linear causing the collapse. Gell-Mann and friends contend that collapse occurs when a quantum system interacts with another system having many degrees of freedom - "decoherence" . The Many Worlds people, which I guess still includes Wheeler [I forget where Whitten comes down on all of this] still contend that the entire universe splits into two with every observation. The requirement that a consciousness be observing - one core problem with Schrödinger's Cat - is still widely argued. This all gets into Von Neumann's discussions about what happens if I measure using an instrument that measures another instrument, measuring instruments etc. Which measurement actually causes the collapse? Then, the brain gets into the act as an instrument. This then gets into ideas that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, and that the observer's consciousness gets "entangled" with the experiment... Boy, if you want to send a Bohrian into orbit try that one on him!

But here is my favorite:

It seems the Quantum Cosmologists have their own funny ideas. They don't think we can collapse wave functions by observing things, rather, they argue that when I look at a gauge, I leap into a superposition of eigenstates! Gee, I never felt a thing!

Finally, I also saw a recent article in Scientific American, I think, where collapse is argued to be a relative phenomenon. It's a wave for you and a particle for me...all in the same universe? YIKES!