The Illusion of Free Will in the Context of Time Travel and Paradoxes

[boffinwannabe]

so they say we can't travel back n time because it would create a paradox. Theres a line of thought that's says it may be possible i we select the history that does not cause a paradox. However it seems to me that quantum physcics also says that all historys exsist until we collapse the wave. This means we cannot create a paradox that doesn't already exsist as a possible history. The paradox problem also seems to imply that a paradox is only a paradox because it creates a new timeline, but given that we know a timeline only exsists because its the line of entropy, then there's nothing special about timeline paradoxs, its more to do with our abaility to think past that timeline we cannot currently move out of.

 

[Goldstone1]

so they say we can't travel back n time because it would create a paradox. Theres a line of thought that's says it may be possible i we select the history that does not cause a paradox. However it seems to me that quantum physcics also says that all historys exsist until we collapse the wave. This means we cannot create a paradox that doesn't already exsist as a possible history. The paradox problem also seems to imply that a paradox is only a paradox because it creates a new timeline, but given that we know a timeline only exsists because its the line of entropy, then there's nothing special about timeline paradoxs, its more to do with our abaility to think past that timeline we cannot currently move out of.

There are many examples of time travel paradoxes. I implore you to read up on Hawking's Chronological Protection Conjecture. I think his conjecture is closest to the truth of time travel.

 

[agentredlum]

There are many examples of time travel paradoxes. I implore you to read up on Hawking's Chronological Protection Conjecture. I think his conjecture is closest to the truth of time travel.

The Granfather Paradox. This one is AGAINST time travel. Suppose you travel back in time and kill your grandfather BEFORE your father is CONCIEVED. Where does that leave you? If your father was never here how can you be here able to go back etc...Now here's a different idea...Time travel should be possible so that your grandfather can travel FORWARD in time and kill you just BEFORE you go back in time to kill him. This one is in favor of time travel. This can be called THE GRANDFATHERS REVENGE THEORY. This theory is in reply to Steven Hawkins theory that the past must be made safe for historians (chronology protection conjecture). This alternate view makes the future safe for grandfathers.

 

[boffinwannabe]

Yes my point really was that there's nothing scientific in calling something such as the grandfather paradox a paradox. The implication is that a paradox prohibits time travel but the idea of a paradox is something humanistic and is a paradox to us because we are still trapped into thinking in terms of a single time line and cannot conceive of travel to a point in that line and changing its history. Clearly we have never done this in a laboratory. However my own thinking was that time is not fixed, we are living in a collapsed wave, and all possible histories still exist as probability waves. Just because we cannot conceive of what happens when we change the linear nature of a collapsed wave does not to me make much sense to assume it would be a paradox if our definition of a paradox is something that prohibits time travel. I am trying to say that we could not change anything if all possible histories already exists as uncollapsed waves, they would already contain so called paradoxes as a possibility.

 

[agentredlum]

Yes my point really was that there's nothing scientific in calling something such as the grandfather paradox a paradox. The implication is that a paradox prohibits time travel but the idea of a paradox is something humanistic and is a paradox to us because we are still trapped into thinking in terms of a single time line and cannot conceive of travel to a point in that line and changing its history. Clearly we have never done this in a laboratory. However my own thinking was that time is not fixed, we are living in a collapsed wave, and all possible histories still exist as probability waves. Just because we cannot conceive of what happens when we change the linear nature of a collapsed wave does not to me make much sense to assume it would be a paradox if our definition of a paradox is something that prohibits time travel. I am trying to say that we could not change anything if all possible histories already exists as uncollapsed waves, they would already contain so called paradoxes as a possibility.

Yes, but do these alternate histories exist as physical realities? If they do I would agree with you that they are full of paradoxes. The simplest example I can think of is an alternate physically real history with a law for existence that postulates the impossibility of alternate histories. That would make this future impossible because we postulate that alternate histories exist...unless we are the physical evolution of that history (the one that prohibits alternate histories)

If these alternate histories are merely 'thought experiments' meaning they don't physically exist then what is the point of the underlying philosophy of Quantum Mechanics? You don't need Q.M. to explain that an experiment can have many outcomes. In my opinion, what Q.M. contributes is the idea that an experiment can have ANY outcome and all those outcomes EXIST until you collapse the wave function by actually performing the experiment. In my opinion this is an absurd idea filled with paradoxes.

One more thing. Popularizers of Q.M. always mention the POSITIVE aspects of multiple realities. You are rich, beautiful, healthy, smart, safe, etc. They never mention the negative. You're missing a leg, an eye, you're constantly tortured, murdered, etc.

If you made a list of the positive and negative aspects of multiple realities, the NEGATIVE would far outweigh the positive simply because there are more ways to cause chaos than there are ways to cause order.

Personally I wouldn't like to be a rock. I like the fact that billions of years of evolution have 'steered' me to complexification and greater order as a conscious being able to think my own thoughts.

These multiple realities Q.M. is allowing... most of them would be quark soup...if you follow the logical consequences of the reasoning of popularizers beyond their first few sentences.

 

[agentredlum]

By the way have you ever heard of the delayed choice quantum eraser? I first learned about it in a book by Paul Davies.

Here is a wiki link about quantum eraser and delayed quantum eraser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

 

[agentredlum]

Wait a minute, I think I just got your point which I find very interesting. You are saying it is not a paradox if you move into an alternate history that allows paradoxes?

Hmm... then so called 'paradoxes' may be allowed in this reality. I am not against this idea, but clearly paradoxical situations are not 'easy' to create, on the other hand there are examples such as quantum eraser, quantum tunnelling, quantum entanglement, EPR. etc. (Please add to the list)

Thank you for the post, but i am still in favor of making Q.M. a bit more logical. For instance you can have an infinite number of realities as long as some of them are missing (The absurd ones) The same way you can have an infinite amount of numbers between zero and 1 but 2 is absent.

This way the absurd reality where I am a conscious bowling ball DNE

 

[boffinwannabe]

Yes, but do these alternate histories exist as physical realities? If they do I would agree with you that they are full of paradoxes. The simplest example I can think of is an alternate physically real history with a law for existence that postulates the impossibility of alternate histories. That would make this future impossible because we postulate that alternate histories exist...unless we are the physical evolution of that history (the one that prohibits alternate histories)

If these alternate histories are merely 'thought experiments' meaning they don't physically exist then what is the point of the underlying philosophy of Quantum Mechanics? You don't need Q.M. to explain that an experiment can have many outcomes. In my opinion, what Q.M. contributes is the idea that an experiment can have ANY outcome and all those outcomes EXIST until you collapse the wave function by actually performing the experiment. In my opinion this is an absurd idea filled with paradoxes.

One more thing. Popularizers of Q.M. always mention the POSITIVE aspects of multiple realities. You are rich, beautiful, healthy, smart, safe, etc. They never mention the negative. You're missing a leg, an eye, you're constantly tortured, murdered, etc.

If you made a list of the positive and negative aspects of multiple realities, the NEGATIVE would far outweigh the positive simply because there are more ways to cause chaos than there are ways to cause order.

Personally I wouldn't like to be a rock. I like the fact that billions of years of evolution have 'steered' me to complexification and greater order as a conscious being able to think my own thoughts.

These multiple realities Q.M. is allowing... most of them would be quark soup...if you follow the logical consequences of the reasoning of popularizers beyond their first few sentences.

The all possible histories i believe is no more and no less real than the particle probability wave and requires some form of interaction for a possibility to become a reality. Yes its really interesting to think of alternate universes and all possible laws governing them but I am not really thinking past this one. Do the laws of physics allow for different history's to have different laws? Very interesting but i thought those histories themselves are governed by our current laws of physics since its the current laws that allow for them in the first place.
I don't see how a paradox prohibits time travel, the laws of known physics dont, so why does our inability to conceive the result of a paradox make time travel impossible? To me its nothing more than infinity, does anyone really know what it is? But it doesn't stop us using it to describe the universe, as long as the maths works. My point about paradoxes being contained or not contained in all possible histories is that its not relevant. Because although we live apparently one linear life, its just part of all possible histories, so breaking the linear line in our reality, which we would have already done by time travelling, would now mean the paradox is just part of the new history.
The all possible histories is as real as the electron taking all possible paths in the double slit experiment, and the electron does eventually appear real to us when their wave is collapsed. QM doesn't just say an experiment can have any outcome, actually i don't interpret it that way, its more an possible outcome, it must be paths that the electron could have taken. And even then some paths are more likely than others. While it may seem absurd its real. The maths works and the experiments confirm the predictions.

If you made a list of the positive and negative aspects of multiple realities, the NEGATIVE would far outweigh the positive simply because there are more ways to cause chaos than there are ways to cause order.

does one thing suppose the other? Much of the negative and positive would be very subjective, i wonder how you would actually calculate the balance. The implication in what you say is that chaos must give rise to more negative possibilities, but why must they outweigh the positive? More weather patterns for example means more ways to have a good day as well as bad. For many of the negative paths of this increased chaos would lead to such a calamity that the universe would be blown apart, so that would end that history. But for the positive lines they would go on and on, i wonder once you calculate the amount of information within the positive histories to the negative ones if they would not balancer out and be consistent with our symmetrical universe?
Im not sure that qm allows for multiple realities unless you mean multiple universes and parralel universes? the maths isn't that proven in these areas i believe. Much is still theoritcal and allows for explanation of other things such as the apparent tight laws that allow for us to exist.

Personally I wouldn't like to be a rock. I like the fact that billions of years of evolution have 'steered' me to complexification and greater order as a conscious being able to think my own thoughts.

Its interesting here you seem to be making a case for the positive benefits of chaos, entropy over billions of years.

 

[boffinwannabe]

By the way have you ever heard of the delayed choice quantum eraser? I first learned about it in a book by Paul Davies.

Here is a wiki link about quantum eraser and delayed quantum eraser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

Yes I've looked at this before, i love all this apparent non-real reality :)

 

[boffinwannabe]

Wait a minute, I think I just got your point which I find very interesting. You are saying it is not a paradox if you move into an alternate history that allows paradoxes?

Hmm... then so called 'paradoxes' may be allowed in this reality. I am not against this idea, but clearly paradoxical situations are not 'easy' to create, on the other hand there are examples such as quantum eraser, quantum tunnelling, quantum entanglement, EPR. etc. (Please add to the list)

Thank you for the post, but i am still in favor of making Q.M. a bit more logical. For instance you can have an infinite number of realities as long as some of them are missing (The absurd ones) The same way you can have an infinite amount of numbers between zero and 1 but 2 is absent.

This way the absurd reality where I am a conscious bowling ball DNE

In a way, I am saying that paradox is already contained in that history or you could not have moved into that history to start with. But i think this is a slight mis-interpretation? As i understand it its not that anything is possible, that you could wake up as a bowling ball, its that anything is possible if there was a way for it to happen, no matter how remote.

 

[agentredlum]

The all possible histories i believe is no more and no less real than the particle probability wave and requires some form of interaction for a possibility to become a reality. Yes its really interesting to think of alternate universes and all possible laws governing them but I am not really thinking past this one. Do the laws of physics allow for different history's to have different laws? Very interesting but i thought those histories themselves are governed by our current laws of physics since its the current laws that allow for them in the first place.
I don't see how a paradox prohibits time travel, the laws of known physics dont, so why does our inability to conceive the result of a paradox make time travel impossible? To me its nothing more than infinity, does anyone really know what it is? But it doesn't stop us using it to describe the universe, as long as the maths works. My point about paradoxes being contained or not contained in all possible histories is that its not relevant. Because although we live apparently one linear life, its just part of all possible histories, so breaking the linear line in our reality, which we would have already done by time travelling, would now mean the paradox is just part of the new history.
The all possible histories is as real as the electron taking all possible paths in the double slit experiment, and the electron does eventually appear real to us when their wave is collapsed. QM doesn't just say an experiment can have any outcome, actually i don't interpret it that way, its more an possible outcome, it must be paths that the electron could have taken. And even then some paths are more likely than others. While it may seem absurd its real. The maths works and the experiments confirm the predictions.does one thing suppose the other? Much of the negative and positive would be very subjective, i wonder how you would actually calculate the balance. The implication in what you say is that chaos must give rise to more negative possibilities, but why must they outweigh the positive? More weather patterns for example means more ways to have a good day as well as bad. For many of the negative paths of this increased chaos would lead to such a calamity that the universe would be blown apart, so that would end that history. But for the positive lines they would go on and on, i wonder once you calculate the amount of information within the positive histories to the negative ones if they would not balancer out and be consistent with our symmetrical universe?
Im not sure that qm allows for multiple realities unless you mean multiple universes and parralel universes? the maths isn't that proven in these areas i believe. Much is still theoritcal and allows for explanation of other things such as the apparent tight laws that allow for us to exist.Its interesting here you seem to be making a case for the positive benefits of chaos, entropy over billions of years.

I like how you mention 'tight' laws that allow for our existence. I take it then you would agree that most of these other universes would not have these laws 'tight' enough to allow conscious beings capable of asking these questions? Those are the ones i would call ABSOLUTELY negative. I tried to use an example that anyone could relate but i like your idea better, it is less subjective.

Be very careful! I am not saying other universes don't exist, I'm not saying they do. i can't prove either. What i am saying is that if other universes exist it is a bad thing (in my subjective opinion) Popularizers of Q.M. say it is a good thing (in their subjective opinion)

They make their argument for positive aspects of infinite realities, i make my argument for negative aspects of infinite realities.

I would like to adress your last remark. Perhaps i should have used dis-order instead of chaos? i am not using some 'fancy' chaos theory here, i am saying dis-order is an enemy of greater complexity, greater complexity is needed for consciousness, therefore dis-order is an enemy of consciousness.

 

[agentredlum]

I certainly do not want to give chaos credit for consciousness even though i think there are thinkers out there that do

 

[agentredlum]

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."- Albert Einstein

I think Einstein made this negative quote about Q.M. as it was understood in his day. Has this consequence of quantum mechanical philosophy changed since then?

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (A. Einstein)

I think this is an interesting warning by Dr, Einstein.

"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business!"- Erwin Schrödinger

Again, very interesting insight from one of the founders of Q.M.

http://www.integrated-magic.com/faqs/famous-physicsts

 

[DrChinese]

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."- Albert Einstein

I think Einstein made this negative quote about Q.M. as it was understood in his day. Has this consequence of quantum mechanical philosophy changed since then?

Yes, it is generally considered - with all due respect to this great man - wrong. Read up on the related papers EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen), Bell's Theorem (1965) and Aspect (1981).

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

We live in an observer dependent reality (i.e. a contextual world), which goes against the quote above (which argues for observer independence). Although this conclusion is somewhat interpretation dependent.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."- Albert Einstein

And the intriguing reply from Niels Bohr was:

Can you prove that the moon is there if nobody is looking at it?​

Personally I love Einstein; he was a great genius, but to make him a scientific "God", which never made any mistakes, doesn’t benefit anyone...

 

[agentredlum]

And the intriguing reply from Niels Bohr was:

Can you prove that the moon is there if nobody is looking at it?​

Personally I love Einstein; he was a great genius, but to make him a scientific "God", which never made any mistakes, doesn’t benefit anyone...

If nobody is looking at it then everyone Must look somewhere ELSE. This requires a systematic search of the entire universe to complete the proof Bohr wants.

His rquest is equivalent to asking 'prove unicorns do not exist'

I do not make him a "God" His superiors made him a Dr. and his peers made him famous.

 

[agentredlum]

Yes, it is generally considered - with all due respect to this great man - wrong. Read up on the related papers EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen), Bell's Theorem (1965) and Aspect (1981).

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

We live in an observer dependent reality (i.e. a contextual world), which goes against the quote above (which argues for observer independence). Although this conclusion is somewhat interpretation dependent.

Thanks for the links. I am aware of these and mention them in post #7. Still, it benefits everyone to learn more.

If the observed effect is not a consequence of experimental apparatus interference, then what is the conclusion? Space and particles have mystical properties?

Should we trust Q.M. to make predictions about large objects, like THE MOON!?? Or should we confine it to the sub-atomic level where things behave in counterintuitive ways because of imperfections in the experimental apparatus and lack of understanding by us.

Einstein was right-with all respect to great thinkers against him-Q.M. does NOT describe the behavior of the moon, Relativity does.

 

[Drakkith]

I've never understood the question "Is the moon still there if no one is looking?"
As far as I understood an observer doesn't have to be a person, it can be anything that interacts with the object somehow. If so, then everything in the universe is interacting with something all the time, correct? Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

[agentredlum]

I've never understood the question "Is the moon still there if no one is looking?"
As far as I understood an observer doesn't have to be a person, it can be anything that interacts with the object somehow. If so, then everything in the universe is interacting with something all the time, correct? Am I misunderstanding something here?

I thought CONSCIOUSNESS collapses the wave function. Is a mechanical detector conscious if your eye is not on it?

I thought that any conscious sensory perception is needed in order to collapse the wave function. This perception can happen now, in the past, or in the future long after the experiment itself is over.

This is what 'delayed quantum eraser' shows.

Look at post # 7 for lnk

 

[DaveC426913]

I've never understood the question "Is the moon still there if no one is looking?"
As far as I understood an observer doesn't have to be a person, it can be anything that interacts with the object somehow. If so, then everything in the universe is interacting with something all the time, correct? Am I misunderstanding something here?

Nope. You're perfectly correct.


The Moon thing is not a practical thought experiment, but it is one about principle.

In principle there is a possibility that the Moon mgiht not be interacting with anything for some brief moment in time. In that time, we cannot be certain it is not there.

I thought CONSCIOUSNESS collapses the wave function. Is a mechanical detector conscious if your eye is not on it?

I thought that any conscious sensory perception is needed in order to collapse the wave function. This perception can happen now, in the past, or in the future long after the experiment itself is over.

This is what 'delayed quantum eraser' shows.

Look at post # 7 for lnk

No. It is simply a measurement. Consciousness is not part of it.

 

[Drakkith]

How can it not interact with anything? If the electromagnetic force and gravity are infinite, then wouldn't it always be under the influence of forces? Which, to my knowledge, were what defines the interaction?

 

[DaveC426913]

How can it not interact with anything? If the electromagnetic force and gravity are infinite, then wouldn't it always be under the influence of forces? Which, to my knowledge, were what defines the interaction?

Dunno. Does the force of gravity qualify as an interaction? Certainly the force of gravity affects the Moon, but does the Moon affect the force of gravity?

 

[Drakkith]

Dunno. Does the force of gravity qualify as an interaction? Certainly the force of gravity affects the Moon, but does the Moon affect the force of gravity?

What?

 

[DaveC426913]

What?

I'm saying I don't know if simply being acted upon by gravity constitutes an interaction. Interactions I hear of are between particles.

 

[agentredlum]

I'm saying I don't know if simply being acted upon by gravity constitutes an interaction. Interactions I hear of are between particles.

Are you certain then that light is a particle?

 

[agentredlum]

Nope. You're perfectly correct.The Moon thing is not a practical thought experiment, but it is one about principle.

In principle there is a possibility that the Moon mgiht not be interacting with anything for some brief moment in time. In that time, we cannot be certain it is not there.
No. It is simply a measurement. Consciousness is not part of it.

Here is a link that supports my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you certain then that light is a particle?

Good point.

The point Drakkith is raising is that everything in the universe is under the influence of gravity at all times. If gravity does constitute an interaction that collapses wavefunctions then we have unequivocally answered the age-old question of whether the Moon is there when we're not looking at it. It is.

But there is a difference between gravity and light. Gravity is a field. Perhaps influence by a field does not qualify. Light still qualifies because it is not a field.

I'm not making any assertions, just pointing out that Drakkith's logic (the Moon is always interacting) - if one accepts the premise (gravity is an interaction) - is inescapable.

 

[agentredlum]

Good point.

The point Drakkith is raising is that everything in the universe is under the influence of gravity at all times. If gravity does constitute an interaction that collapses wavefunctions then we have unequivocally answered the age-old question of whether the Moon is there when we're not looking at it. It is.

But there is a difference between gravity and light. Gravity is a field. Perhaps influence by a field does not qualify. Light still qualifies because it is not a field.

I'm not making any assertions, just pointing out that Drakkith's logic (the Moon is always interacting) - if one accepts the premise (gravity is an interaction) - is inescapable.

The following is my opinion. I don't want to use fancy mathematical field theory. Confirmation of EPR experiment shows photons separated by great distance are connected somehow. What connects them? Possibly light may be a field? Just an observation, don't want to step on anybodies toes.

 

[DaveC426913]

The following is my opinion. I don't want to use fancy mathematical field theory. Confirmation of EPR experiment shows photons separated by great distance are connected somehow. What connects them? Possibly light may be a field? Just an observation, don't want to step on anybodies toes.

Except that quantum entanglement works quite nicely on particles too - electrons, atoms, even large molecules.

 

[agentredlum]

Except that quantum entanglement works quite nicely on particles too - electrons, atoms, even large molecules.

I have heard about these things you mention, quantum entanglement of electrons, atoms. How large are the molecules?

In my opinion, an interesting aspect of EPR is that the 'interaction' is instantaneous violating speed of light limit. If gravity is an 'interaction', is it also instantaneous or is it constrained by Relativity?

 

[DaveC426913]

I have heard about these things you mention, quantum entanglement of electrons, atoms. How large are the molecules?

Bucky balls. C60.

In my opinion, an interesting aspect of EPR is that the 'interaction' is instantaneous violating speed of light limit.

Hang on. I'm not comfortable describing entanglement as an interaction. They are entangled, it is not a case of one affecting the other. Which is why it does not violate relativity.

If gravity is an 'interaction', is it also instantaneous or is it constrained by Relativity?

Good point. Gravity is just a word. If we're looking at Einsteinian gravity - the curvature of space, then instantaneous is not the right word. A better word is omnipresent. The field is just "there". It always was there and walsy will be, though its value may change. The propogation of changes in the filed is limited to the speed of light.

If we're looking at quantum gravity, well that's mediated by gravitons, which propogate at c as well.

 

[Drakkith]

Dave, aren't all "interactions" simply a particle exerting force on another one? Aren't the charged particles in the solar wind exerting an EM force on the moon?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, aren't all "interactions" simply a particle exerting force on another one? Aren't the charged particles in the solar wind exerting an EM force on the moon?

Certainly that counts as an interaction. That's why the thought experiment is not a practical one - but it is one of principle.

In principle, all the oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Practially, it will never happen in the lifetime of the universe. But there's no physical law vetoing it.

Likewise, the Moon will always be interacted with, but in principle, if we aren't ... careful .. there's no physical reason why there couldn't be a brief mpment when nothing is interacting with it, and we cannot know it's there.

This works for real at atomic scales, the point of using the Moon is that it drives home the point that is happens to "real life" objects, even ridiculously huge things we take for granted. And it is only a matter of scale between electrons being out-of-sight-out-of-mind and planetoids being same.


Put another way: are you comfortable with a universe where the only thing making the Moon behave is the sun's rays (and other radiation) upon it? If the light stopped for a second, the Moon could wink out of existence?

 

[Drakkith]

I don't follow you Dave. How could the moon, or anything else really, ever NOT be interacting with something else? Whether the oxygen atoms are on the other side of the wall or not, they are always withing the effect of countless fields right?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't follow you Dave. How could the moon, or anything else really, ever NOT be interacting with something else?

In practice, true.

The point is, that it implies our reality is not as real as we thought. If the universe could stop paying attention to it, it might disappear.

That is a heady concept.

 

[agentredlum]

Bucky balls. C60.Hang on. I'm not comfortable describing entanglement as an interaction. They are entangled, it is not a case of one affecting the other. Which is why it does not violate relativity.Good point. Gravity is just a word. If we're looking at Einsteinian gravity - the curvature of space, then instantaneous is not the right word. A better word is omnipresent. The field is just "there". It always was there and walsy will be, though its value may change. The propogation of changes in the filed is limited to the speed of light.

If we're looking at quantum gravity, well that's mediated by gravitons, which propogate at c as well.

WOW! Didn't know Buckyballs exhibit quantum entanglement, that's fantastic! I googled Buckyball entanglement and got quite a few links, here is a link NOT wiki.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html

There are many 'explainers' of EPR that claim violation of speed of light. Here is a link combining buckyball entanglement and EPR

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1092359

 

[Drakkith]

In practice, true.

The point is, that it implies our reality is not as real as we thought. If the universe could stop paying attention to it, it might disappear.

That is a heady concept.

I've yet to see anything that implies that, but I haven't gotten into the nitty gritty math and other details of QM.

 

[agentredlum]

If nobody is looking at it then everyone Must look somewhere ELSE. This requires a systematic search of the entire universe to complete the proof Bohr wants.

His rquest is equivalent to asking 'prove unicorns do not exist'

I do not make him a "God" His superiors made him a Dr. and his peers made him famous.

And the intriguing reply from Niels Bohr was:

Can you prove that the moon is there if nobody is looking at it?​

Personally I love Einstein; he was a great genius, but to make him a scientific "God", which never made any mistakes, doesn’t benefit anyone...

I love Einstein too. In my opinion, as far as his physics is concerned-not his personal life-the only time he was wrong is when he thought he was wrong, physics wants to bring back the Cosmological Constant!

 

[agentredlum]

Certainly that counts as an interaction. That's why the thought experiment is not a practical one - but it is one of principle.

In principle, all the oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Practially, it will never happen in the lifetime of the universe. But there's no physical law vetoing it.

O-K i have heard this argument before but i have a question about it. Does Q. M. allow you to say...

In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.

Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If nobody is looking at it then everyone Must look somewhere ELSE. This requires a systematic search of the entire universe to complete the proof Bohr wants.

I don't follow you Dave. How could the moon, or anything else really, ever NOT be interacting with something else? Whether the oxygen atoms are on the other side of the wall or not, they are always withing the effect of countless fields right?

[Note: I’m not a professor of physics]

agentredlum & Drakkith, I think DaveC426913 explained it all very well. As said, a 'measurement' does not need to be a 'visual inspection' by humans; all it takes is a 'disturbance' to put the quantum state into a 'definite' state. As we all might have guessed – Einstein’s talk about the Moon is a 'teasing' metaphor to 'stress' Bohr a little bit (they liked to joke around). However, as far as I know, the discussion between them where primarily on the level of the 'quantum world'.

Nevertheless, it’s quite clear that there’s no clear cut between the classical macroscopic world and the microscopic quantum world, and everything in 'our macroscopic world' is of course resting on the laws of the quantum world (= QM rules! ).

Furthermore, as humans we doesn’t often reflect on this – but 'our reality' consist mainly of emptiness, huge voids of emptiness (and I’m not talking about the feeling when your favorite football team lose the game of the year ). We like to think of macroscopic objects as solid and compact, but they are mainly built up of emptiness, including the Moon...

For me personally, it feels a little bit 'odd' to think that the Moon would 'disappear & reappear' like a freaking "Morse code" if it could be completely "screened off/on". However, my personal feeling is not something QM cares about , and I have discussed this matter with RUTA (who indeed is a PhD Professor of Physics), and thought I had real 'tricky question' in showing him the picture of gold atoms, as we see them thru scanning tunneling microscope (that are microscopic and thus shouldn’t 'exist'):

The positions of the individual Gold atoms
composing the surface are visible.

RUTA answered:

This confusion is always generated by statements like "atoms and photons don't exist." Zeilinger has created interference patterns with large molecules (buckyballs, I think) and there's nothing in QM that says you can't get interference patterns using even bigger objects. So, do molecules not exist? Where is the "cut off?"

The "picture of atoms" you showed was generated by millions of photons per second. The belief is that the atoms are "there" whether we excite them or not. That's the source of the confusion. In the RBW "relational" view, or Bohr et al's "symmetry" view, or Zeilinger's "measurement" view, if you strip away the relations/symmetries/measurements, you lose everything. In the atomic view, you still have the atom "sitting there in space," it's just not interacting with anything, i.e., it's "screened off." Once you decide to construct "things," like the atoms in your picture, from relations/symmetries/measurements, rather than smaller "things," e.g., quarks and electrons, then you understand clearly that the atoms in your picture slowly disappear as you gradually reduce the number of relations/symmetries/measurements ("photons" in the language of "things") used to "see them." In other words, the relations (aka "photons" in "things" talk) don't allow you to "see the atoms," the relations "construct the atoms." So, given millions of photons per second, you're well into the classical regime, thus your "picture." This view makes it clear how the dynamical/causal classical reality of interacting "things" might obtain statistically from a more fundamental, adynamical reality of relations/symmetries/measurements (a la the Figure from our arXiv paper you posted earlier).

And the Moon (of course) consists of similar building-blocks in form of atoms...

(However, when I questioned RUTA about gravity the picture seems to be just a little bit 'unclear', and who can blame him – quantum gravity is still under investigation... )

RUTA is working in the forefront of all of this, looking for new explanations, and one working hypotheses, is that everything is made up of interactions! What we see is the 'mirror image' of what really goes on at the QM level. Look at this picture of the two faces:

Then look at the 'thing' in between the faces that form into a vase – this "vase of interactions" is all that really is!

(i.e. according to RUTA ... )

In my opinion, an interesting aspect of EPR is that the 'interaction' is instantaneous violating speed of light limit.

Dave is right again, this is not the case. There is no exchange of true information going on between entangled particles – thus no superluminal speed (FTL). The 'only' thing you get is correlations, which are completely random to its nature, and you are only able to detect and see this 'pattern of correlations' by exchanging the measurement data at (maximum) the speed of light.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubts, and nowadays clear that the old classical world of Local Realism is a dead parrot. What remains to be settled is whether the real nature of our world is non-local or non-real (or both!). According to Dr. Anton Zeilinger it’s the idea of reality (as we know it), which is at stake...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIzMZtQ9NwQ

 

[Drakkith]

Nice post Devils, but unfortunately I don't think really answered my questions at all.
But I did learn other things!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Okay, thanks Drakkith! Let 'em coming, I’ve reloaded my Unreal-QM-Machinegun!

()

 

[Drakkith]

Okay, thanks Drakkith! Let 'em coming, I’ve reloaded my Unreal-QM-Machinegun!

()

Just remember your quad damage pickup! (I think that was unreal)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just remember your quad damage pickup! (I think that was unreal)

The unreal quad damage pickup is not a bad vehicle, but when things get real nasty – I always use my imaginary speedy red sports car, it always makes my enemies cry!

 

[agentredlum]

Is this place a forum for debate, or is this place, just a place, where others give subjective opinions why they think they are right?

 

[Drakkith]

Is this place a forum for debate, or is this place, just a place, where others give subjective opinions why they think they are right?

What are you talking about?

 

[Trevormbarker]

lol^. could someone not argue that timetravel to help the past will never be discovered as if someone in the future does discover it it is likely they would try to prevent something from happening ie the holocaust but we have not seen anything like that be stopped or someone form the "future" in which case we could say that time travel is never discovered, at least for any purposes of affecting the past.

 

[agentredlum]

What are you talking about?

I am a little disappointed because i have presented evidence and it has been ignored.

 

[OneMan98]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

 

[agentredlum]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

I for one welcome your input. You may have an insight we all missed. Personally, I am not an expert but the subject fascinates me. If one cannot explain their position to a non expert then how good is the explanation?