Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
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.

Ok (now I've read some more of the site, though I still don't have time to read all of it). It was my understanding that they are assuming they can know that the wave-function didn't collapse, and yet not collapse it by their knowledge of it's state, and yet their premise is that the collapse of the wave-function is a result of their knowledge of it's state.

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.

No, my problem is that they use such terms as the "threat" of being detected and the "knowledge" of being observed.

I'm sorry, I must go now. I will finish my response as soon as I can get back on-line.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ok (now I've read some more of the site, though I still don't have time to read all of it). It was my understanding that they are assuming they can know that the wave-function didn't collapse, and yet not collapse it by their knowledge of it's state, and yet their premise is that the collapse of the wave-function is a result of their knowledge of it's state.

Ahh ok I see what you're saying. Let me see if I can clarify. They aren't saying that the wave function of a photon will collapse when they know the state of the wave function itself. The knowledge that they are speaking of is not knowledge of the state of the wave function. Whether the wave function is present or collapses can easily be determined. That isn't the issue.

The knowledge that they are speaking of is the path of the photon itself. This is what cannot be known without collapsing the wave function. And when ever the information pointing to the path of the photon has been erased, the wave function will re-appear!

I decided earlier that I would try to post a step by step of an experiment. This way you can point to a segment that bothers you. Hopefully at the end, it will be clear what the experiments have shown. I don't have time right now. Will try to do this later.

No, my problem is that they use such terms as the "threat" of being detected and the "knowledge" of being observed.

The words they use are simply the easiest to use without a lot of explanation. I assume they figure most people can tell from scientific context what they are saying.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
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.

Alright, maybe my problem with the experiment is that I don't completely understand it. It seems like they are trying to prove that just the "threat" - or possibility - of our gaining knolwedge of it's path makes it's wave-function collapse. It appears that they believe they can deduce this from the fact that they interrupted the idler photon but not the signal photon, thus making themselves able to know the path of the signal photon, without interfering with it, and yet the wave-function still collapsed. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, of if I missed something.)

The thing is that this experiment is just like the EPR experiment, and that has long been settled (or so I thought) by saying that the two electrons (or, in the case of your experiment, photons) are quantum-bound to each other (since they are really just greater probabilities of the same particle), and so whatever you do to one affects the other.

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

Well, consciousness is required for the photon to detect our gaining knowledge, or the possibility of our gaining knowledge. But I can drop that point for now, if you want.

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

Then do it.

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.

Alright, I can forget the "conscious stuff", if you can explain to me how a photon can "know" or "suspect" or even "assume" without being conscious. After all, it must "know", "suspect", or "assume" that we can gain knowledge of it, in order to "decide" (another conscious process) to collapse it's wave-function.

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?

NO! Completely the opposite. In fact, I thought that hints of this kind of classical reasoning were at the heart of your reasoning. But I guess we both misjudged each other there.

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.

That's not what I was intending to imply, and I apologize if it came out in such an arrogant fashion. However, I have now read most of the text, and have replied (above) to what I think a couple of flaws are.

Also, please remember that "layman's text" is not degrading in any sense; and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't cover any serious or complicated issues. It only means that they leave out the details (usually mathematics), and instead try to interpret them into common language. I believe I gave the example before of Schrodinger's Cat illustration. In that analogy, Schrodinger was explaining the common occurances of the subatomic world, in terms of some macroscopic being, which most people could relate to easily. However, this may mislead people into thinking that it is our watching of our pet cat that causes it's very existence, which is not really true.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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!

This just proves that there is still contraversy on the subject, and I never said that there wasn't. However, for those that say that consciousness has something to do with it, all I can say is that they need a better understanding of the workings of the brain. Consciousness is one of those workings of the brain, and so it is obviously not distinguishable at the subatomic level (it would be like postulating that "color" has some affect on sub-atomic phenomena).

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!

I don't like when people appeal to common sense, while trying to understand QM. QM is counter-intuitive and cannot be understood in terms of common sense (which is why good layman texts are so hard to find).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
This just proves that there is still contraversy on the subject, and I never said that there wasn't. However, for those that say that consciousness has something to do with it, all I can say is that they need a better understanding of the workings of the brain. Consciousness is one of those workings of the brain, and so it is obviously not distinguishable at the subatomic level (it would be like postulating that "color" has some affect on sub-atomic phenomena).

In the end thought must be enabled through QM processes. I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that the mind could somehow entangle with an experiment is seen worthy of pursuit by some very brilliant people. Also, the original post by Tiberius and many of the comments that follow would indicate that this is not justifiably controversial. My post was intended to show otherwise. The core of this argument about consciousness is over 70 years old. Are you arguing that you have figured it out? You don't seem willing to learn before drawing conclusions. It does appear as if your mind is set to one interpretation in spite of evidence to the contrary. Oh what an entangled web we weave when first we measure to perceive.

I don't like when people appeal to common sense, while trying to understand QM. QM is counter-intuitive and cannot be understood in terms of common sense (which is why good layman texts are so hard to find).

Was I appealing to common sense, or was this just a general comment?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
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.

I have to agree with all this. From all that I've read there does seem to be a lot of differences among scientists on this very topic. This is the very reason I responded to this thread. I don't have the answers on QM but I am pretty sure that Tiberius doesn't either. Which is exactly the point. This issue has not been resolved. If what Tiberius is saying is true then I see no reason at all why these scientists are wasting there time doing these experiments because they are geared toward answering the question "what causes the wave function to collapse?" Why bother if the answer is so obvious?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
I have to agree with all this. From all that I've read there does seem to be a lot of differences among scientists on this very topic. This is the very reason I responded to this thread. I don't have the answers on QM but I am pretty sure that Tiberius doesn't either. Which is exactly the point. This issue has not been resolved. If what Tiberius is saying is true then I see no reason at all why these scientists are wasting there time doing these experiments because they are geared toward answering the question "what causes the wave function to collapse?" Why bother if the answer is so obvious?

IMHO, one reason this happens is the unfortunate habit that physicists have of stating their position as if it is the only one. I was literally taught not to waste time by informing everyone that an assertion is just my opinion. To be exact, the phrase was "everyone already knows that". This was a part of the prepared lecture. Unfortunately, when the typical student reads about the theory and philosophy of a particular school of thought, that this material is not gospel truth is not always obvious. I was lead in circle for years because of this. I have encountered a fair number of physicists who will deny the credibility of theories about which they know very little. Someone taught them that Bohr was right and there it ended.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, maybe my problem with the experiment is that I don't completely understand it. It seems like they are trying to prove that just the "threat" - or possibility - of our gaining knolwedge of it's path makes it's wave-function collapse. It appears that they believe they can deduce this from the fact that they interrupted the idler photon but not the signal photon, thus making themselves able to know the path of the signal photon, without interfering with it, and yet the wave-function still collapsed. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, of if I missed something.)

Yes I'd say you just about got that one. But let me say that I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the words like "threat" or possibility of knowledge and you're assuming that the implications has to do with consciousness, therefore this is wrong. The first thing we must do, is understand the experiment. Then we can decide what it means and what it doesn't mean. Once you understand the experiment you will no longer have to guess what they mean when they use certain words. You will know what they mean.

So let's just start with an example similar to the one you stated above since you seem to have it. Now I'm going to butcher the experiments a bit. I want to get to the main points without going into detail on exactly how a mirror was positioned ect. I will try to stick to the relevant points and simplify this a bit.

1) A beam of light has been split into two. Mirrors are used to point these 2 beams back together and converge them at another splitter forming a diamond shape. The second splitter sends two beams to 2 photon detectors;One detector for each beam.

Without going any further, with just step 1, we know that the photons arrival data into the detectors will show an interference pattern. This means that we cannot know which path a photon chose to go. It's path between the 2 splitters( a diamond shape) is a complete mystery. It seemingly has gone down both paths.

2) Now you place a device into the path of one of the split beams that changes the polarization of the photons.

This is simply a way to "tag" these photons and differentiate them from the photons going down the other path. Polarization of photons is binary so there are only 2 options. So now we have 2 paths of photons with different polarity converging at the 2nd splitter. Now the interference pattern in the light detectors is gone.

At this point you(Mentat) would say the wave function collapses because we have simply interacted with it. And these scientists are saying that it collapses because we can now determine which slit the photons traveled. Because now whenever either detector tells us that it has received a tagged photon, we know which path the photon has traveled. So either interpretation could be correct at this point.

3) Now you place a polarization filter in front of both detectors that only allows photons of one polarity through.

Now with this addition we have inserted another physical interaction with the photons. We have filtered out one polarity type. So that means that the detectors will now receive no distinguishing information about the photons. This is very much the same situation we started with. And now the interference pattern has re-appeared.

It is this 3rd step that isn't explained by what you are saying. This is the "eraser" part since the distinguishing information that we had has now been erased by the filter.

I have heard you say that our interaction with the photons is what collapses the wave function, but I have not heard you say that another interaction uncollapses it! The correlation seems to be with the abilty for the path to be known; not interactions or disruptions.

The thing is that this experiment is just like the EPR experiment, and that has long been settled (or so I thought) by saying that the two electrons (or, in the case of your experiment, photons) are quantum-bound to each other (since they are really just greater probabilities of the same particle), and so whatever you do to one affects the other.

True but this leaves out step 3 above.

Well, consciousness is required for the photon to detect our gaining knowledge, or the possibility of our gaining knowledge. But I can drop that point for now, if you want.

Alright, I can forget the "conscious stuff", if you can explain to me how a photon can "know" or "suspect" or even "assume" without being conscious. After all, it must "know", "suspect", or "assume" that we can gain knowledge of it, in order to "decide" (another conscious process) to collapse it's wave-function.

Does the universe understand Calculus? It seems to because it obeys it perfectly. I'll let you simmer on that one a while. This discussion really is where we ought to be in this forum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have read quite a bit of this thread but it is very long. Please forgive if this has been discussed. From what I gather this issue of the eraser is problematic. Another example that may be helpful is that of a certain diffraction experiment that I read about. Some kind of special material I think was used, I'm not sure what this was, but the properties were such that for every photon that enters, two emerge with half the frequency of the source and at different angles. From this, in principle we have a one to one mapping between photon pairs a, and a'. We now take one of each pair and send them down separate paths, A, and A'; into the required mirrors and such, through a diffraction grating, and finally onto a target.

If I make no measurement, we see the classic diffraction pattern on targets A, and A'. If we measure the position of particle a in path A, we can infer the position for the corresponding particle a' in A'. Thus, if I measure for position in path A, since now I can infer knowledge of position for a’, in A', the diffraction pattern is destroyed in both A, and A'.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If I make no measurement, we see the classic diffraction pattern on targets A, and A'. If we measure the position of particle a in path A, we can infer the position for the corresponding particle a' in A'. Thus, if I measure for position in path A, since now I can infer knowledge of position for a’, in A', the diffraction pattern is destroyed in both A, and A'.

Yes, actually that's the same experiment as the eraser experiment. The eraser is just an additional step on that same setup. The device that you mentioned is called a down-converter in the article. It does just as you said. It splits a photon into 2 lower frenquency photons and sends them down different paths.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In the end thought must be enabled through QM processes. I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that the mind could somehow entangle with an experiment is seen worthy of pursuit by some very brilliant people. Also, the original post by Tiberius and many of the comments that follow would indicate that this is not justifiably controversial. My post was intended to show otherwise. The core of this argument about consciousness is over 70 years old. Are you arguing that you have figured it out? You don't seem willing to learn before drawing conclusions. It does appear as if your mind is set to one interpretation in spite of evidence to the contrary. Oh what an entangled web we weave when first we measure to perceive.

My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.

Was I appealing to common sense, or was this just a general comment?

Well, you probably weren't, but some of the things your quote were:

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!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes I'd say you just about got that one. But let me say that I still think you are putting too much emphasis on the words like "threat" or possibility of knowledge and you're assuming that the implications has to do with consciousness, therefore this is wrong.

Well, they did, after all use those very words, and it appears to fit with their hypothesis, since their "knowledge" would have to change the photon (and it doesn't appear that this could be the case, unless the photon, at some point, posessed knowledge of our knowledge).

The first thing we must do, is understand the experiment. Then we can decide what it means and what it doesn't mean. Once you understand the experiment you will no longer have to guess what they mean when they use certain words. You will know what they mean.

Alrighty then.

So let's just start with an example similar to the one you stated above since you seem to have it. Now I'm going to butcher the experiments a bit. I want to get to the main points without going into detail on exactly how a mirror was positioned ect. I will try to stick to the relevant points and simplify this a bit.

1) A beam of light has been split into two. Mirrors are used to point these 2 beams back together and converge them at another splitter forming a diamond shape. The second splitter sends two beams to 2 photon detectors;One detector for each beam.

Without going any further, with just step 1, we know that the photons arrival data into the detectors will show an interference pattern. This means that we cannot know which path a photon chose to go. It's path between the 2 splitters( a diamond shape) is a complete mystery. It seemingly has gone down both paths.

2) Now you place a device into the path of one of the split beams that changes the polarization of the photons.

This is simply a way to "tag" these photons and differentiate them from the photons going down the other path. Polarization of photons is binary so there are only 2 options. So now we have 2 paths of photons with different polarity converging at the 2nd splitter. Now the interference pattern in the light detectors is gone.

At this point you(Mentat) would say the wave function collapses because we have simply interacted with it. And these scientists are saying that it collapses because we can now determine which slit the photons traveled. Because now whenever either detector tells us that it has received a tagged photon, we know which path the photon has traveled. So either interpretation could be correct at this point.

3) Now you place a polarization filter in front of both detectors that only allows photons of one polarity through.

Now with this addition we have inserted another physical interaction with the photons. We have filtered out one polarity type. So that means that the detectors will now receive no distinguishing information about the photons. This is very much the same situation we started with. And now the interference pattern has re-appeared.

It is this 3rd step that isn't explained by what you are saying. This is the "eraser" part since the distinguishing information that we had has now been erased by the filter.

I have heard you say that our interaction with the photons is what collapses the wave function, but I have not heard you say that another interaction uncollapses it! The correlation seems to be with the abilty for the path to be known; not interactions or disruptions.

But they didn't make all of these different changes on the same beem of light (did they?), and so it needn't be collapsed an then uncollapsed.

As far as that third step goes, I'd say that you've not taken into account the quantum effect on the very polarization of the photon. After all, you have not "split" some ball-shaped (yet massless) particle, but have just split it's probability - so that it is greatly probable that it is in one of those two positions, but it is not completely "true", since nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world.

I apologize, I must get off-line now. I will complete my response tomorrow. I would much appreciate it if you didn't respond to my post until it is complete, but that is up to you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided.

Well, you probably weren't, but some of the things your quote were:

Ah. I was being flippant. Being from a personal letter to a friend, the tone was a little different than a regular post. I was just joking a bit.

 

[Jagger2003]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Fascinating thread. IMO, the implications are revolutionary. Assuming knowledge is non-material, what we are seeing is a possible non-material component of cause and effect.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mentat
My current view of consciousness is not of my own origin; I've done my research. Cartesian Theater models of the Universe don't make sense, and very few respectable Neuroscientists or Psychologists would argue otherwise. Daniel Dennett's "Multipe Drafts" model works for me for now, until proven false, or until something better arrives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided.

Ivan is correct. Science isn't even close to proving an origin of the consciousness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. It seemed that you were asserting that your opinion is the consensus among scientists; that this is not only your view but also the proper view. If you are arguing why you prefer one model over another, then this is something else entirely. In this case you are wrong but not misguided.

Why am I wrong?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Ivan is correct. Science isn't even close to proving an origin of the consciousness.

I direct you to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Clement Dennett.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why am I wrong?

Because this is my opinion.

As soon as I have reviewed all of the related information I will jump in. This thread is so long I didn't even spot the source article the first time.

One thing that I am trying to determine is whether or not these photon pairs from the down-converter are considered entangled until measured.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
True but this leaves out step 3 above.

No it doesn't, since when you block a certain polarization from taking one of the paths, you have changed the quantum-bound photon.

Does the universe understand Calculus? It seems to because it obeys it perfectly. I'll let you simmer on that one a while. This discussion really is where we ought to be in this forum.

Know, I don't think the Universe understands anything, as a whole. I think that mathematics is just a form of logic, which is the way that the Universe works - but not the way it had to work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
I direct you to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Clement Dennett.

One book is hardly a consensus. I am quite sure that no notices have gone out to the journals announcing that the mystery of consciousness is solved.

I can show evidence that consciousness continues even if no EEG can be measured. Would this scenario be explained by Clement's thesis?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Because this is my opinion.

As soon as I have reviewed all of the related information I will jump in. This thread is so long I didn't even spot the source article the first time.

One thing that I am trying to determine is whether or not these photon pairs from the down-converter are considered entangled until measured.

All quantum pairs, produced by such "splitting" experiments, are considered entangled. That should be rather obvious, since (as I've been pointing out repeatedly) you cannot literally split some massless particle in half, you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
All quantum pairs, produced by such "splitting" experiments, are considered entangled. That should be rather obvious, since (as I've been pointing out repeatedly) you cannot literally split some massless particle in half, you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.

It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.

And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
you can only split it's probability wave, so that it greatly probable that it is one of the two places.

I don't know what this means. What is the mathematical meaning of splitting a wave function?

I can imagine other possibilities beyond whatever you mean here. For example, perhaps the incoming photon excites an atom in the crystal which then releases half the energy as a photon. It may then excite its neighbor to release another photon. In this way the two have a mapping but I think not entanglement.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, they did, after all use those very words, and it appears to fit with their hypothesis, since their "knowledge" would have to change the photon (and it doesn't appear that this could be the case, unless the photon, at some point, posessed knowledge of our knowledge).

Understand the experiment first.

But they didn't make all of these different changes on the same beem of light (did they?), and so it needn't be collapsed an then uncollapsed.

Why didn't they? It isn't relevant anyway. A beam of light is a beam of light. A photon is a photon. If an apple falling from a tree stops half way to the ground and then just floats, scientists all over the world would be shocked wouldn't they? Would you then say to them "Why are you guys so shocked? Sure all those other apples fell to the ground but this isn't the same apple"? I doubt it. If you understand the experiment, you will understand that it is just like the apple analogy.

It seems as if you have once again focused in on my words of collapse and uncollapse and interpreted them literally to mean that it was the same photon when that isn't really relevant to the experiment at all. Just like you're doing with the other words. Context seems to be a problem for you when you read. Perhaps it is the short amount of time you are devoting to reading and responding. But if it continues on from here it'll be my fault. I'm going to have to be more careful.

As far as that third step goes, I'd say that you've not taken into account the quantum effect on the very polarization of the photon.

If a photon is being passed through a device that sets it's polarity to X, what other quantum option is there? There is no quantum effect of the polarization. Surely you give these scientists more credit than this?

After all, you have not "split" some ball-shaped (yet massless) particle, but have just split it's probability - so that it is greatly probable that it is in one of those two positions, but it is not completely "true", since nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world.

I'm not sure I like the way you worded this. I don't interpret it as "nothing is in the Quantum Mechanical world." If I said earlier that a photon was nowhere, I meant "nowhere in particular", which could mean that a photon is everywhere! It is in both places. So it is present and able to have it's polarization affected.

I would like to just note that you are not just disagreeing with me Mentat. You are questioning the validity of experiments being performed in major university labs by professional scientists. Now there's nothing wrong with that in principal but I think it is something worth pointing out since my whole entry into this thread was to rebutt what appeared to be dogmatic bias by the originator. If I were you I would take a lot more time to understand these experiments before responding. It's one thing to disagree on the notions of scientists in matters of philosophy but I don't have the guts to tell them their experiments are flawed.

To simply think outside the box and try to conjure up a problem that sounds good may be comforting but it seems somewhat like irresponsible philosophy. I think we have to take what science gives us and work with it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, since when you block a certain polarization from taking one of the paths, you have changed the quantum-bound photon.

Again, you have focused on the wrong point. I am agreeing with everything you've said about the EPR experiments. But that does not refute anything in these experiments.

Know, I don't think the Universe understands anything, as a whole. I think that mathematics is just a form of logic, which is the way that the Universe works - but not the way it had to work.

Do not gloss over what I've said. I can tell from this response that you "didn't get it". That's why I said simmer on it a while. I wasn't looking for an actually literal response on calculus and the universe. You're supposed to apply the analogy to the actual topic at hand and find the similarity. So take what you've said above and apply it to the implications of these experiments. Hopefully you will see why consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored. I've said that all along. But we cannot discuss it if people keep ignoring it because they don't understand QM..

 

[Jagger2003]

Mind

Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.

Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.

http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
...consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. There is no right answer here. This topic needs to be explored.

It would seem that since this controversial topic [for more than seventy years now] violates our every bit of sense by implication at least, the opinions expressed are often highly charged. For some reason, it seems that the potential significance of these matters is mostly avoided. I find that many professional scientists [works for IBM instead of USC] virtually deny any mystical implications here. By mystical I mean something with a WOW factor of > 0.95; where 0 <= WOW <= 1 for all WOW.

I don't mean forever unexplainable magic.
[EDIT: Which is what QM seems to be right now!]

If by some views the implications of these experiments are true, this does seem to be revolutionary in any real sense. This is no less revolutionary than Newton's lesson that things fail, and things don't fail as described by the laws of physics; not by goblins and fairies. As was implied by Jagger2003; one potential implication of this: We may have killed Maxwell's demon with information, but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK.

This may finally boil down to an inconceivable, inexplicable set of equations that work without yielding insight. But if the goblins exist, then if we can ever understand this stuff in a philosophical way, we may be witnessing momentous paradigm shift for the human race. Really in any case we are. I think this is why many authors present their opinions as facts. This of course combined with the unusually straight forward and abrupt style of many scientists. I don't mean this to be critical. I only mean this as an observation from one person's point of view. This timbre creates confusion and I think impedes potentially grand new insights into that thing called reality. IMHO


And above all people like Mentat should be trying to figure this out!
Edit: Damnit!

 

[wimms]

I have few questions regarding main 3rd experiment in http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm

1) why do they need fancy down-converters? why splitters wouldn't do?
2) What is the function of beam splitters 2 and 3 - why are they required instead of using mirrors to direct necessary beams to converge at common spots on detectors?
3) Cutting off idler1 from splitter 3. Are we supposed to assume that beams idler1 and idler2 do NOT interact AT splitter3, but would be only directed to ID detector? If so, then it looks fishy, as cutting off idler1 is equivalent to moving ID detector into that cutoff point, or simply making idler1 path shorter.
4) I assume that if cutoff was done between splitter3 and detector, 'knowledge' would not change, thus interference of signals would remain?

This somehow reminds me unstable electronic circuit, beam paths acting as conductors, wave photons acting as resonant AC current, splitters acting like feedback leaks. How crackpot would it be to suppose that splitters that are more like adders change some sort of space impedance on both alternate paths, and cutting off one of beams causes impedance drop throughout the whole circuit for a beam path that remains intact? Braking AC oscillator circuit loop and making it into DC static current conduit, only instead of free electrons, photons are used.

5) any hint on how to repeat such experiment at home? no, really, penpointer laser, mirrors, digital camera for detector. Would be interesting homework.

 

[Jagger2003]

but the goblins and fairies, THEEERE BAAAAAACCCCK.

I agree that they could be back. Of course, way too early to conclude anything, but it is interesting there is so little discussion of the possible implications.

Whether knowledge or consciousness, the non-material component would bring down the assumption of a purely materialistic universe. It would also raise the question of which came first, matter or non-matter or did they arise simultaneously. If one came first and if a non-material component is essential to cause and effect, then we would have to have matter arise from the non-material.

Then we would wonder what is this non-matter composed of and where comes its ability to impact matter with knowledge or will or intent or whatever. I suspect we would end up examining the consciousness for its unique qualities as the only known example of a type of non-material entity which recognizes knowledge, contains intent and will unlike purely physical matter. Then we might theorize some sort of overarching quality of consciousness beyond the individual consciousness to produce a unified experience of existence. UMMMMmmmm...No, we don't want to go down that road until it is absolutely necessary.

Of course, first we must understand the cause of a waves collapse.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Mentat, I haven't read Dennetts book. Although I am sure if he had proved the origin of consciousness, he would have a Nobel and we would have all heard of it. Undoubtably he has another theory amonst many.

Here is a good online book which provides a very comprehensive history of consciousness studies including the latest theories that you may enjoy. It will give you an idea of some of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the origin of the mind.

http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html

Thanks, Jagger2003, this is right up MY alley (where I generally get mugged by materialists). In fact, a few of the sentences are almost verbatum what I have been saying: "No scientific theory of the Universe can be said complete if it doesn't explain consciousness."

Still, at first scan, it looks as though this might be confined (and, being a panpsychist, I'm using the word "confined" advisedly) to human -- or biological -- consciousness. But no matter ...I'm sure it will be a good read. Thanks again.

By the way, did you read the introductory post? Some don't like the "C" word here. Thus, I have only been "auditing" this thread...that is, "receiving no credits" for keeping my opinions to myself.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Fascinating thread. IMO, the implications are revolutionary. Assuming knowledge is non-material, what we are seeing is a possible non-material component of cause and effect./B]

Now you did it: new buddy. (Careful: we are not among friends.)