Please help to solve this dilemma

[Fuzzystuff]

So I've been in a debate at this other forum on http://www.my-big-toe.com/

My Big TOE book written by "physicist" Thomas W. Campbell

For some days now, I've been telling them that there is absolutely no evidence for the experiment that is claimed in at 2:45 to 4:00.

He (Thomas) says in the video, regarding the double slit experiment, that if you leave the detectors turned on, but you throw away the data from the detectors without looking at the data, you get a wave interference pattern on the screen behind the slits.

I would like it if anyone with credentials or high expertise in this field of Quantum Mechanics to be able to suggest some references for me, or somehow help put an end to the pseudo-science that is going on there. Basically, is there any experiment that has ever happened that would suggest what Thomas has said in the video at 2:45 to 4:00?

Thanks.

 

[tom.stoer]

I have seen claims regarding such a quantum behavior (in Scientific American?) some years ago, but I don't know a (peered reviewed) article. You should google for "quantum eraser experiment", or search arxiv.

-------------

Edit: I found this in PHYSICAL REVIEW A http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf [Broken]

 

[lightarrow]

He (Thomas) says in the video, regarding the double slit experiment, that if you leave the detectors turned on, but you throw away the data from the detectors without looking at the data, you get a wave interference pattern on the screen behind the slits.

It depends crucially on what exactly it's meant with the terms "throw away the data" and "without looking at the data". For what could be understood, said in this mere way, it's false, but precised (much) better, in a technical way, it's true (see previous post about quantum eraser experiment).

 

[Fuzzystuff]

It depends crucially on what exactly it's meant with the terms "throw away the data" and "without looking at the data". For what could be understood, said in this mere way, it's false, but precised (much) better, in a technical way, it's true (see previous post about quantum eraser experiment).

Does the wave function of the particle collapse or get interfered with upon interactions with other particles? In all cases?

 

[lightarrow]

Does the wave function of the particle collapse or get interfered with upon interactions with other particles? In all cases?

Can you precise better your question, in relation to the subject of this thread?

 

[K^2]

Does the wave function of the particle collapse or get interfered with upon interactions with other particles? In all cases?

No. You have to be very careful here, because Copenhagen Interpretation does not strictly state what constitutes a measurement. It only covers how you model a measurement. If you do indeed avoid measuring the state, there is no collapse, but whether or not simply turning off the detectors makes a difference depends on the actual physics of interaction between particle, inert detector, and the environment. There is no trivial answer here.

I found that Many Worlds Interpretation usually gives you better "gut feeling" about what should happen with the system. The two interpretations are mathematically equivalent, so when you actually work out the problem, you get identical results. But with MWI, things like quantum eraser make more intuitive sense. Try to read up on it a little bit. Keep in mind that as far as physics goes, it doesn't matter if the many-world is real, or if it's just a mathematical construct.

 

[Demystifier]

I found that Many Worlds Interpretation usually gives you better "gut feeling" about what should happen with the system. The two interpretations are mathematically equivalent, so when you actually work out the problem, you get identical results. But with MWI, things like quantum eraser make more intuitive sense. Try to read up on it a little bit. Keep in mind that as far as physics goes, it doesn't matter if the many-world is real, or if it's just a mathematical construct.

I very much agree with all these claims. But I would like to add that with the Bohmian interpretation (which can be thought of as MWI + additional variable), the quantum eraser makes even more intuitive sense, irrespective of whether this additional variable is real or is just a mathematical construct.

 

[ThomasT]

So I've been in a debate at this other forum on http://www.my-big-toe.com/

My Big TOE book written by "physicist" Thomas W. Campbell

For some days now, I've been telling them that there is absolutely no evidence for the experiment that is claimed in at 2:45 to 4:00.

He (Thomas) says in the video, regarding the double slit experiment, that if you leave the detectors turned on, but you throw away the data from the detectors without looking at the data, you get a wave interference pattern on the screen behind the slits.

I would like it if anyone with credentials or high expertise in this field of Quantum Mechanics to be able to suggest some references for me, or somehow help put an end to the pseudo-science that is going on there. Basically, is there any experiment that has ever happened that would suggest what Thomas has said in the video at 2:45 to 4:00?

Thanks.

I'm not an expert. Just curious. What's the title of the thread where you're discussing this via the link you provided?

Imho, what he says between 2:45 and 4:00 in the video doesn't make any sense. And he makes no reference to quantum eraser experiments which involve entanglement.

There's no interference pattern without data.

 

[Fuzzystuff]

I'm not an expert. Just curious. What's the title of the thread where you're discussing this via the link you provided?

Imho, what he says between 2:45 and 4:00 in the video doesn't make any sense. And he makes no reference to quantum eraser experiments which involve entanglement.

There's no interference pattern without data.

It's in the Physics section, titled, "Putting Things Straight, Consciousness and QM Issue."

Here:
http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5669

 

[ThomasT]

It's in the Physics section, titled, "Putting Things Straight, Consciousness and QM Issue."

Here:
http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5669

Wrt the thread Putting things straight. Consciousness and QM issue at Thomas Campbell's My Big Toe Forum, the thread starter, soprano, was also the thread starter of this thread Double slit experiment with detectors not recording at Physics Forums in July, 2010 under the username, tofu. He links to the latter thread in the former thread.

If you read through that Physics Forum thread, your question should be adequately answered.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the Thomas Campbell of My Big Toe fame is something of a crackpot, and that what he says during 2:45 to 4:00 on the video you linked to is simply false.

By the way, who are you in the thread at My Big Toe? I took a look at it to try to follow the thread and maybe deduce who you might be in order to see exactly what you're saying there. The posts don't seem to be in chronological order.

 

[Fuzzystuff]

Wrt the thread Putting things straight. Consciousness and QM issue at Thomas Campbell's My Big Toe Forum, the thread starter, soprano, was also the thread starter of this thread Double slit experiment with detectors not recording at Physics Forums in July, 2010 under the username, tofu. He links to the latter thread in the former thread.

If you read through that Physics Forum thread, your question should be adequately answered.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the Thomas Campbell of My Big Toe fame is something of a crackpot, and that what he says during 2:45 to 4:00 on the video you linked to is simply false.

By the way, who are you in the thread at My Big Toe? I took a look at it to try to follow the thread and maybe deduce who you might be in order to see exactly what you're saying there. The posts don't seem to be in chronological order.

Name is BrandonHedberg there

 

[Fuzzystuff]

I just want to say also that soprano over at mbt is not the tofu guy here. Also, Ross Rhodes does not have a lot of credential when discussing quantum physics correctly, does he? This site here http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html talks about the experiment that Thomas mentions in the video. Do you suppose that it is sufficient to say what Thomas has said in the video and what Rhodes has said on that website, is incorrect, based on evidence of what actually occurs?

 

[ThomasT]

I just want to say also that soprano over at mbt is not the tofu guy here.

Well, soprano said he started the thread at PF, and tofu is the username of the starter of that thread.

Also, Ross Rhodes does not have a lot of credential when discussing quantum physics correctly, does he?

I don't know.

This site here http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html talks about the experiment that Thomas mentions in the video. Do you suppose that it is sufficient to say what Thomas has said in the video and what Rhodes has said on that website, is incorrect, based on evidence of what actually occurs?

I just glanced at Rhodes' site. Don't really know if he said what Campbell says at 2:45 to 4:00 of the video. But you have it from at least three people who know a lot more about this stuff than I do that what Campbell says in that interval in the video is false.

Where's Campbell anyway? Can't you just email him and ask him what he's talking about? Maybe the interference pattern is in his mind, as if the slits aren't both obstructed. In that case, then yes, his consciousness has a lot to do with him seeing an interference pattern absent any data to generate such a pattern.

If you have any further questions or comments about this it would probably be a good idea to start a thread in the general discussion forum. Anyway, there's enough info in related (two-slit experiment) threads at PF, and on the internet in general for you to learn enough to confidently form you own opinion about Campbell's statements in the video and his (and Rhodes' ?) programs/agendas.

 

[Tom Booth]

There's no interference pattern without data.

There are two sets of data. #1) which "slit" the photon (or other particle) went through and #2) Where did the particle actually impact the screen. or what pattern developed on the screen over time.

In early experiments using actual light 'waves' or photons the pattern on the screen was visual. Later more advanced experiments using electrons and such had to be analyzed but there are still two(2) sets of data.

The only thing being "erased" or that there is no data about in any case, or where the data is thrown away is the data recorded at #1, which slit did the photon go through. There is always information regarding the pattern or the second set of data or there would be no experiment.

If the results of the experiment were not as stated, physicists would not still be puzzling over it, trying to figure out how to explain it and Mr Campbell would have nothing to talk about.