Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nonlocality and consciousness

  1. Dec 22, 2004 #1
    I don't know how widely accepted in the physics community nonlocality is. From the double-slit experiment and Aspect's results it seems that nonlocality seems to be a true attribute of the world around us. This being the case, if subatomic particles are "nonlocal" then so is my brain and therefore my consciousness (And everyone else for that matter). I have a very general education so the above ideas may be coming from a mind that is believing only what it wants to believe. What is your input on this. Thank you
    Robert
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2004 #2

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This is also a question that is probably better asked in the quantum physics forum. Those of us here in the philosophy forums don't know any more about non-locality than you do. You're likely to get a lot of unfounded speculation here.
     
  4. Dec 22, 2004 #3
    To loseyourname

    You may be right, Nonlocality and consciosness is not so much an internal question of mine but I would like to hear different views from other perspectives on the subject. I will check back in here and also take your suggestion and post under quantum physics. Thanks, Robert
     
  5. Dec 22, 2004 #4
    Suppose everything is non-local, would that mean that everything is in a single point, everywhere at the same time, or nowhere?
     
  6. Dec 23, 2004 #5
    the illusion of spacetime

    To try and envision a universe where time and space does not exist with our minds that are discriminating a 3-dimensional reality is alomost impossible. Your desription are probably just about as accurate as anyone else's model since it is so difficult to think otherwise.
    Your "singlepoint" model is probably based on what you have heard and read about singularities and that is probably more accurate than a "no where" universe.
    The point that I am trying to make is that if nonlocality is true, then consciousness is nonlocal and therefore it permeates throughout the entire universe, which would support idealism
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2004
  7. Dec 24, 2004 #6
    Nonlocality

    If you want justice done to this topic, I would advice you to keep it here. It should stay put! Since when has science been able to resolve its own vagueness? Leave it here and you should see the miracle unfold!
     
  8. Dec 24, 2004 #7
    Some of you might feel insulted for posting this tutorial because you feel that you are already physicists or at least versed in the subject. Please, if you do feel that way, accept my sincerest apology as this link is meant for the ill-versed creature like myself. If you are the master, just skip it!
     
  9. Dec 24, 2004 #8
    CLEARING UP THE VAGUENES

    Well, there are two fundamental issues at stake here, (1) the Issue of measurement of axis of the two particles and (2) the issue of the knowledge of choice of axis with regards to the causal relation between particles 1 and 2.

    Let’s start with the first. The statement that “the spin of a particle does not exist until a measurement is made…” seems to me to be intellectually misleading, at least as far as the notions of clarity and understanding are concerned. This statement sounds as if the maker is implying that the spin is not already naturally there and that it is the measurement itself that actually creates the spin. Unless this statement is construed as a metaphorical way of speaking or explaining things within the science community, then one would have no cause for admonishing the maker for phrasing it that way. Otherwise, if this statement were meant for wider consumption outside the science community, then the maker of the statement ought to say quite clearly that:

    ‘The spin was already naturally there (regardless of if its time of occurrence coincides or collides with its time of measurement) but that the measurer came to the knowledge of it at the time of measurement’

    Well, this is a much clearer statement and it paints a much clearer picture. In this case, the time of occurrence is naturally distinguished from the time of measurement, and, as the statement clearly shows, there is no causal relation between the two, nor is there one between the spin and the measurement. However, as far as logic goes, there is no contradiction is saying that there can be a causal relation between the measurer and the spin, for there is nothing which logically rules out the measurer being both the cause of the spin and the cause of the actual measurement itself, as is typical under a controlled lab experiment condition. A scientist may artificially cause a particle to spin and at the same time measures it. But the measurement cannot cause the spin…..the spin naturally exists independent of measurement!

    This will force the clearer conclusion that the spin naturally exists irrespective of whether we measure it or not, or irrespective of when we do decide to measure it.

    On the issue of particle 2 ‘instantaneously reacting or responding to’ a change in the spatio-temporal conditions of particle 1 regardless of the distance, why should this come as a surprise to scientists? Why the confusion? In terms of the measurement of the action-reaction time relation, logic always naturally preserves completely the time interval between an action and a reaction regardless of the shortness of such an interval. The only problem here is the reaction time of the measurer which any measurement aimed at being accurate and logically consistent must take into account. Question now is:

    When measuring the spin of particle 1 and the so-called ‘instantaneous reaction’ (the spin) of particle 2, does the measurer take into account his or her own ‘Reaction time’ (RT) (or what I sometimes call ‘Perceptual Rate of the Perceiver’ (PRP))?

    If he/she erroneously discounts this from the measurement, why should he/she be dazed by the fact that, as far as logic dictates, he/she is trying to measure and grasp the information contents of events that are occurring at several times the rate of his/her perception, or response? To this end, I argue that:

    The measurement of nonlocal events, as it currently stands, is infected by the erroneous exclusion of the RT/PRP of the measurer.

    Where do you obtain RT/PRP? Physicists should pay their neuroscientist colleagues a visit, of course, that’s only if RT/PRP is already calculated and defined within the neuroscience discipline. If this has not been done, then the two disciplines must urgently collaborate and do so. As for me, I remain sceptical as to whether you can obtain an accurate and a logically consistent measurement of external events without taking into account the measurer who himself/herself is also an event relative to what is being measured.

    Particle 2 knows which axis you have chosen because you the agent of change form a transitional bridge in a chain of causal relation from particle 1 to particle 2. The only thing that is fundamentally significant of consideration by physics is the reaction speed of the signal from particle 1 to 2, which seemingly violates Einstein’s universal constant - the speed of light. The question that physics must now consider is whether it’s Einstein’s relativistic theory or the nonlocality thesis that needs revision. Well, this is contradicted by the author’s note:

    My response to this is that Regulatory Laws of Nature (RLN) are never into the bad habit of leaving unaccountable gaps on logical pathways. The great Juggler may very well juggle as cunningly as he or she likes but can never pretend to mess with logic, let alone with RLN that uses logic to guard with double precision the complex and intertwining pathways of the juggler’s balls. Either Einstein universal constant is being violated or not. If it is being violated, there must be clear logical explanation. If it is not violated while the nonlocality thesis still holds, you aren’t going to tell us that a third party Super juggler or magician is involved. Even with this, I still see no reason for RLN or logic itself to be undermined. Ultimately, ‘instantaneous connection’ only makes sense if it completely submits to and obeys the rules of logic. If it does not, there is no difference between this sort of proposition and phantasmagoria, unless you are willing to call to interplay the notion of ‘INVISIBLE HAND’ that is already exhaustively considered in philosophy! As you know, philosophers have one notorious habit of punching holes into hypotheses, and the theory of invisible hand is no exception. One of the grounds for disputes is that invisible hands cannot act as ‘invisible bridges’ on logical pathways, however remote, linear, curved or randomised such pathways may outwardly seem. The logical pathways must remain clear and ‘visually’ accessible to the observer at all times.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2004
  10. Dec 24, 2004 #9
    Philosophical Analysis of the Notion of ‘Instantaneous Connection/Reaction’

    If you say that B instantaneously connects or reacts to A, well, philosophically, this could mean many things:

    1) It could mean, both in quantity and in logic, that A=B and A or B is acting and reacting at the same time and place. That is, one thing with two references or names in one place and time is acting and responding to itself. If this is what you mean, no philosopher that I personally know would accept anything else outside this very interpretation.

    2) It could also mean that two different things, A and B, separately located in space and time, are instantaneously connected and reacting to each other’s actions or changes. That in acting in this way they are somewhat obeying some logical laws. If this is what you mean, then this would introduce all the well known physical properties into the discourse – distance, motion, time intervals, speed, velocity, actions and reaction times, etc. You would use these physical properties to do your usual physical analysis of all the physical relationships that may hold between A and B. But one thing you can never do is to divert the attention of the onlookers to something equivalent to a freak show. The result of your physical analysis cannot produce a freak result other than what may truly be called ‘A QUANTITATIVELY AND LOGICALLY CONSISTENT RESULT’.

    In this case, your physical analysis becomes a little bit more taxing because you need to show in your analysis, coherently, how A instantaneously connects/reacts to B without undermining the standard and well-know physical relationships that naturally hold between them. Instantaneous relations must now be shown to be logical relations and nothing else. If you want to relieve yourself of the burden of proof and of the risk of your result being ridiculed by your fellow scientists, this is perhaps the point at which you must approach philosophers and ask them what all this means.

    3) It could also mean that A at position 1 is causally connected to B at position 2 and both are causally connected to, and influenced and bridged by C at position 3. As I have I made it clear above, philosophers, at least those with their heads well-screwed on, would not accept such phantoms such as ‘Invisible Hands. If C is causally bridging the causal events between A and B, then all the physical relationships that naturally hold between them must be fully logically deduced. Nothing else would suffice, as far as the notions of clear thinking and human understanding are concerned. Entities A, B, and C at positions 1, 2 and 3 must be rigorously but clearly accounted for logically and quantitatively.

    4) Equally, philosophers could take instantaneous reation to imply that A is acting at time t1 and B is reacting at time t2 that t2 - t1 = 0. Two things are always acting and reacting to each other at time t = 0. If you are still sane after this and continue to stay on the side of logic, this would imply that the action - response times are referentially coincidental. The question now is whether the coincidence of the time of action and the time of response undermines the notions of time and distance. Does the coincidence of the time of action and the time of reaction eraze spatial distance and time interval from the event? This will inevitably invoke the most far-reaching implications on the nature of spacetime and the nature of the actors within it....under this interpretation, science must account for how entity B always manages to adjust it reaction time relative to the increased distance to ensure that the repsonse time always remains constant. How does it manage to maintain the same response time even when the physical distance increases? If entity B (the responder) has the natural ability to always adjust or regualte response time according to changes in distance, then the entire physics of nature needs full overhaulling or revision.


    NOTE: Science must now clarify as to which of the above 4 interpretations holds. You can take this as a standard guideline for proper conduct of science.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2004
  11. Dec 27, 2004 #10
    The intrigue is due to this:

    "To be more specific, locality means that isolated parts of any quantum mechanical system out of speed-of-light contact with other parts of that system are allowed to retain definite relationships or correlations only through memory of previous contact.Nonlocality means that in quantum systems correlations not possible through simple memory are somehow being enforced faster-than-light across space and time. Nonlocality, peculiar though it is, is a fact of quantum systems which has been repeatedly demonstrated in laboratory experiments."-
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

    for example:
    "Excited atoms often produce two photons in a process called a "cascade" involving two successive quantum jumps. Because of angular momentum conservation, if the atom begins and ends with no net angular momentum, the two photons must have correlated polarizations. When such photons travel in opposite directions, angular momentum conservation requires that if one of the photons is measured to have some definite polarization state, the other photon is required by quantum mechanics to have exactly the same polarization state, no matter what measurement is made. Such correlated photon pairs are said to be in an "entangled" quantum states." http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html


    This is something that is taken into consideration in ANY professional, scientific experiment such as one concerning quantum nonlocality. There are special devices that measure time which have been designed to eliminate human error and thus reduce (by great amount) the error. Such devices utilize lasers to time certain occuranrances...however the percision of a laser is best when studying the temporal nature macroscopic objects; ultramicroscopic objects such as the electron undergo quantum excitement, which is the claustrophobia of particles so to speak. Regardless, it has relatively little error.
    Unfortunately, it is not possible to have complete accuracy according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

    This seems to be a concept of the same conclusion reached by quantum physicists: quantum enganglement. The aforementioned web site brings to light what quantum entanglement is, if you are unaware of the subject. (It's essentially a conclusive form of quantum locality)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2004
  12. Dec 27, 2004 #11
    "To be more specific, locality means that isolated parts of any quantum mechanical system out of speed-of-light contact with other parts of that system are allowed to retain definite relationships or correlations only through memory of previous contact. Nonlocality means that in quantum systems correlations not possible through simple memory are somehow being enforced faster-than-light across space and time. " http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

    As the quote points out, any two particles are entangled if and only if they have been in previous contact with one another. What kind of contact is neccesary for people to experience quantum locality? GOOD question. I believe this is merely a matter of scale. Quantum entanglement has been observed at an ultramicroscopic level when atoms cascade and their photons go in opposite directions:
    "Excited atoms often produce two photons in a process called a "cascade" involving two successive quantum jumps. Because of angular momentum conservation, if the atom begins and ends with no net angular momentum, the two photons must have correlated polarizations. When such photons travel in opposite directions, angular momentum conservation requires that if one of the photons is measured to have some definite polarization state, the other photon is required by quantum mechanics to have exactly the same polarization state, no matter what measurement is made. Such correlated photon pairs are said to be in an "entangled" quantum states." http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

    Now all we need to do is apply to larger scale circumstances.
    If this can be simulated in living brains that are connected(somehow, by computers) , and the aforementioned photons are sparsely distrubuted throughout both brains (if there are 2; there could be more), would the two people react almost be the same person mentally?? :confused:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nonlocality and consciousness
  1. Consciousness? (Replies: 51)

  2. The Conscious! (Replies: 9)

  3. Nonlocal brain/mind (Replies: 10)

Loading...