Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Conscious observer & the wave function

drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 8:31:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

I've seen this argument before and I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the subject. Wave functions and their collapse are not about literal waves collapsing to particles. A wave function represents all possible states for a given particle. The collapse is just the determination of which state that particle is actually in at a given moment. This is what the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment is about. The cat's state is either alive or dead, and those states are represented by a wave function. The cat is not really in both states simultaneously (there is no literal wave). Rather, any discussion that relies on the cat must take both states into consideration, so it is represented by the wave function.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 5:28:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

I think I once heard a scientist remark this is a common misunderstand of QM. His claim was that although measurement has to take place for the collapse to happen the measure doesn't have to be by a CONSCIOUS observer. You can set up a computer to do it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 7:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

This might be true in chuiworld, but here in the real world this is commonly referred to as a big bag of made up nonsense.

It's meaningless to speak of the "temperature" of a particle, and it's absurd to speak of "particles emitting photons due to their temperature". There has been no resolution to the measurement problem whatsoever, and it's accurate to say the questions around wave function collapse in physics are still being debated.

But hey, other than that, good point :)


This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 3:57:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:45:07 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

This might be true in chuiworld, but here in the real world this is commonly referred to as a big bag of made up nonsense.

It's meaningless to speak of the "temperature" of a particle, and it's absurd to speak of "particles emitting photons due to their temperature". There has been no resolution to the measurement problem whatsoever, and it's accurate to say the questions around wave function collapse in physics are still being debated.

But hey, other than that, good point :)

I based my comment on this article

New scientist - Gravity's secret: How relativity meets quantum physics
Published 02 January 2015 by Michael Brooks

"...There are many ideas for why such a thing [de-coherence] might happen. Most are to do with information loss: reading the atom's path forces the atom to choose one path or the other and prevents it taking both. Experiments have shown that there doesn't even have to be a detector: heating the atom up, so that it emits thermal photons that could be used to infer its position, seems to be enough to weaken the interference pattern."

Have I misrepresented what this article says? Perhaps I should have said atom or molecule not just particle?

The equipartition theorem can be used to give a particle a temperature based on its energy. What else is temperature if not a measurement of average particle kinetic energy? How can a collection of particles have a temperature but not each particle?



This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 1:01:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:

To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

There is no line in the sand, yet anyway, for which we can say "when THIS happens, a particle is actualized." The idea of Schrodinger's Cat hypothesizes that an entire macroscopic system, perhaps even including a semi-conscious organism like a cat, can exist in flux before it is resolved by somebody unsealing the box.

It seems to me that there must be a component of consciousness in there; there's a specific type of interaction that must take place to collapse a wave - the type that provides information to a conscious being. There is no universal, objective entity (i.e., God) that "knows" each particle as it collapses anywhere in the universe; the entire universe exists in perpetual flux until somebody bothers to look at a piece of it. Perhaps there's a further relativity to it, even, in which Schrodinger's box contains a human. I'm not sure if I'm talking about Many Worlds or Quantum Bayesianism (Qbism) at this point (or both) but if there was a human in the box the scenario could be resolved to them but still not resolved to us until we open the box. You can take it all the way, to this solipsist extreme, or be as conservative as possible, in which case you would be right. I don't think there is an indisputable answer at this time; the differences are philosophical. I tend to believe it in the extreme, if only because learning about relativity and QM tend to make us shed our preconceived notions, and that trend leads me to believe that such conservative approaches are unjustified attempts to rope QM back into a realm where we are comfortable with it. Additionally, my Kantian metaphysical beliefs are very inviting to QM weirdness! After all, if consciousness is primary over matter, then one would not be appalled by relativity or QM - one would expect such a theory!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:26:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

Chui, that is because you are measuring/observing the photon which causes the collapse. It can be shown that a photon which is not measured by a macro type device that it does not cause a collapse.

The only reason the discussion does not occur in educated circles because it there is no method to test it, which means it falls in philosophy. Unfortunately the Copenhagen school, which is still the prominent method of training physicists in universities, made it a taboo to speculate why the superposition state exists. It wiped the entire paradox under the rug by making definitions to hide the paradox.

As we slowly gain knowledge about the superposition state via weak measurement, it becomes very proper to start exploring why a particle has the potential of being in a superposition then suddenly have a well defined property, such as position.

The discussion is opening up in educated circles and quite frankly educated circles that suppressed questioning it for decades should be ashamed.

This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:34:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

You have to realize this important point and no take the speculation of consciousness role in collapsing the wave function.

If I create an experiment where I take a measurement of the wave function to determine if it exists, it causes the collapse and the particle now has a defined property. The defined property is the same for all conscious observers after the collapse occurs.

"Creating our own realities," is probably an overstatement. If consciousness did have a role in causing the collapse thus giving a particle a actual property (it becomes a real thing), it does not mean I had anything to do with creating anything. The potential always existed. Maybe I played a part in making the potential become a real thing, but that is a different role than creating.

One just needs to be careful to not take speculation of consciousness role too far.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:36:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 5:28:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

I think I once heard a scientist remark this is a common misunderstand of QM. His claim was that although measurement has to take place for the collapse to happen the measure doesn't have to be by a CONSCIOUS observer. You can set up a computer to do it.

You cant set up a macro device that is not being "observed". It would be entangled with particles which are being "observed"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 11:39:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 9:36:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/16/2015 5:28:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

I think I once heard a scientist remark this is a common misunderstand of QM. His claim was that although measurement has to take place for the collapse to happen the measure doesn't have to be by a CONSCIOUS observer. You can set up a computer to do it.

You cant set up a macro device that is not being "observed". It would be entangled with particles which are being "observed"

Now I'm confused. I tend to agree with you that observed particles "trump" unobserved ones, actualizing the entire system. But what of Schrodinger's Cat? Once we seal the box, does not the whole system fall back into being completely unobserved? Is unobserving possible? If it isn't, then Schrodinger's Cat is a useless thought exercise...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 2:11:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 11:39:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:36:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/16/2015 5:28:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

I think I once heard a scientist remark this is a common misunderstand of QM. His claim was that although measurement has to take place for the collapse to happen the measure doesn't have to be by a CONSCIOUS observer. You can set up a computer to do it.

You cant set up a macro device that is not being "observed". It would be entangled with particles which are being "observed"

Now I'm confused. I tend to agree with you that observed particles "trump" unobserved ones, actualizing the entire system. But what of Schrodinger's Cat? Once we seal the box, does not the whole system fall back into being completely unobserved? Is unobserving possible? If it isn't, then Schrodinger's Cat is a useless thought exercise...

From a pure Copenhagen standpoint, it is a worthless exercise because there are not any properties to bother with until observe. They are more concerned with the outcome, which is either the cat is dead or alive. 100% without fail when one looks in the box the cat is alive or dead. What else is there to say about it.

That however is why Schrodinger created this thought experiment, to show the absurdity of what exactly is the cat when the electron is in this superposition state where it has every possible property it could be at once.

There have been and continue to be many tests on what collapses a wave function. On the micro scale it is possible to get bits of info without collapsing, but if I send in photon to see if it bounces off the wave function/particle it causes a collapse as soon as I measure/observe that photon, which collapses the wave function of the original particle.

When you get into larger things, such as a Geiger counter, it indeed is still ruled by quantum, but the wave function is extremely small. In fact if you looked at a piece of sand the wave function is smaller than the physical dimension of the piece of sand. How do you shoot that through a slit?

You get to a Geiger counter, its wave function is even smaller. It would be almost impossible to be in a coherent state with another wave function. Toss in the fact that there are countless interactions going on with the Geiger counter such as air molecules, gravity from the sun, electrical flow coming from a battery or ac input. It is almost impossible to keep it in an unobserved state. Not that we even know what "observed" really means.

If I feel the wind on my skin, it surely is not in a superposition state, it had recent interactions with other air molecules it is entangled with, which may now be touching the geiger counter which should collapse its wave function, so it is now observed.

There are so many questions that need to be answered about this superposition state, but since we don't possesses the technology to extend testing quantum effects on large objects it gets relegated to philosophy and thought experiments. That is changing though.

Even though we can't actually set up a Cat experiment, I think it is extremely relevant and valuable to keep pushing the boundaries.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:47:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

Hehe, too out there for this group? You must be new here.

Anyway, I was thinking about this, and reading others' responses while mulling, when something occurred to me.

So, in the quantum world, particles communicate and often move at speeds much closer to light than everything in the macro world. In the macro world, all of these things appear in stasis, because of the speeds of their interactions.

But, given the relativity of time as it relates to energy and velocity, and the fact that space and time are essentially different aspects of the same energy flux, it makes sense that on a quantum level, time has little to no meaning. Things move and change at such a rate that there is hardly any duration of time elapsed between states and hardly any transference of space between movement -- and this is the basis of superposition.

In such a universe in which time and place have little to no meaning, it makes sense that all possible states and positions exist at once simultaneously. Observing those states at a given moment or position, therefore, would be less realized potential and more a recording, like a photograph. We see one out of all potential realities, because this is the reality we activate based on our observation of time and our influence in the history of an object we can manipulate. However, this realized potential is intrinsic and intertwined, because we are comprised of those same components and are thus a part of that same reality. Therefore, it is less that we are affecting reality, and instead, that we are a single unit linking a web of potentialities that exist. What we observe as time duration is only a string on potentialities of which we are a part. What we observe as position is only that as it relates to our own position, which is inevitable, but only as us, given our contribution to the potential reality in which we exist.

This moment -- perhaps we are a part of an infinite number of moments, and there are an infinite number of potential realities in which our position and moment are occupied by an entirely different being, or object (or nothing whatsoever), and those realities exhibit an entirely different state of all the same exact things. Or, at least, all the same particles. I imagine everything else would manifest as entirely different. So many variables arising from such a rudimentary level means, at least to me, that the actual macrocosmic manifestation of it would have an immeasurable potential for perceivable differences.

Anyway, that occurred to me, and in writing it out, it rings a certain tone truer than other propositions -- especially those that suggest a member of the same reality and same composition must see the rest of reality for it to be real.

That is why, I'm sure, Schrodinger derided the proposition in the first place.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:27:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 9:26:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

Chui, that is because you are measuring/observing the photon which causes the collapse. It can be shown that a photon which is not measured by a macro type device that it does not cause a collapse.


I'm sorry but I do not agree with your view. My comments were based on current understanding in quantum physics. For example

New scientist - Gravity's secret: How relativity meets quantum physics
Published 02 January 2015 by Michael Brooks

"...There are many ideas for why such a thing [de-coherence] might happen. Most are to do with information loss: reading the atom's path forces the atom to choose one path or the other and prevents it taking both. Experiments have shown that there doesn't even have to be a detector: heating the atom up, so that it emits thermal photons that could be used to infer its position, seems to be enough to weaken the interference pattern."

I feel this contradicts your ideas. I think there is nothing magical about a macro type measuring device or conscious observation. To measure position requires hitting things with particles of short wavelength, which means they have high energy and disturb whatever is hit, causing de-coherence. If maintaining entanglement was merely a matter of putting all the measuring devices in another room surely we would be able to keep particles in entangled pairs for long periods of time, but usually they de-cohere in less than a second. This is one of the major obstacles to quantum computing.

Wave like behaviour of particles is not an everyday experience suggesting that wave collapse is constantly being triggered when a large collection of particles is brought together.

The only reason the discussion does not occur in educated circles because it there is no method to test it, which means it falls in philosophy. Unfortunately the Copenhagen school, which is still the prominent method of training physicists in universities, made it a taboo to speculate why the superposition state exists. It wiped the entire paradox under the rug by making definitions to hide the paradox.

The methods for investigating entanglement have been around since the early 1980's. Alain Aspect was the first to test Bell's inequality which is based on the EPR 'paradox'. He showed that the 'paradoxical' behaviour of particles was a reality. I can assure you from first hand experience that the Copenhagen school is not taught at University. Only the maths is taught. Students are free to choose from any of the 20+ interpretations they like. The equations give the same answers irrespective of interpretation. Also there is not and never has a been a taboo on discussion on interpretation hence the 20+ versions out there. What annoys quantum physicists is when the word quantum is used to magically prove some ridiculous assertion about the power of holistic medicine for example.

As we slowly gain knowledge about the superposition state via weak measurement, it becomes very proper to start exploring why a particle has the potential of being in a superposition then suddenly have a well defined property, such as position.

I think it is important to bear in mind that any measurement that reduces uncertainty of one property will automatically cause another property to increase in uncertainty. So particles are in essence always in a superposition, its just that when we say collapse the superposition of waves to do with position we create a superposition of waves to do with momentum, thus keeping the product of uncertainty above a minimum value of about h.

The discussion is opening up in educated circles and quite frankly educated circles that suppressed questioning it for decades should be ashamed.



This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 6:02:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:27:26 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/21/2015 9:26:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:51:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function.

No, there is not such a debate. The wave function has been shown to collapse (or de-coherence to occur) just by particles emitting photons due to their temperature irrespective of these photons being observed. The debate you refer to occurs only outside of educated circles.

Chui, that is because you are measuring/observing the photon which causes the collapse. It can be shown that a photon which is not measured by a macro type device that it does not cause a collapse.


I'm sorry but I do not agree with your view. My comments were based on current understanding in quantum physics. For example

The experiment you are showing is in full agreement with what I have said. When you measure anything that entangles with particle in question, it causes decoherence. When the particle in question is radiating heat and a thing, person, or something take a measurement of it, one would expect decoherence. In fact, before you take a measure of the thermal photons they also are in a superposition state and have no static set properties.

New scientist - Gravity's secret: How relativity meets quantum physics
Published 02 January 2015 by Michael Brooks

"...There are many ideas for why such a thing [de-coherence] might happen. Most are to do with information loss: reading the atom's path forces the atom to choose one path or the other and prevents it taking both. Experiments have shown that there doesn't even have to be a detector: heating the atom up, so that it emits thermal photons that could be used to infer its position, seems to be enough to weaken the interference pattern."

I feel this contradicts your ideas. I think there is nothing magical about a macro type measuring device or conscious observation. To measure position requires hitting things with particles of short wavelength, which means they have high energy and disturb whatever is hit, causing de-coherence. If maintaining entanglement was merely a matter of putting all the measuring devices in another room surely we would be able to keep particles in entangled pairs for long periods of time, but usually they de-cohere in less than a second. This is one of the major obstacles to quantum computing.

I would agree with there being nothing magical, but there indeed is a greater mystery. The mystery is why do things have a superposition state when nobody or thing is looking at them when somebody or thing does look them it gets an actual property. Notice the question is "Why". That is the question which is largely ignored.

Wave like behaviour of particles is not an everyday experience suggesting that wave collapse is constantly being triggered when a large collection of particles is brought together.

The only reason the discussion does not occur in educated circles because it there is no method to test it, which means it falls in philosophy. Unfortunately the Copenhagen school, which is still the prominent method of training physicists in universities, made it a taboo to speculate why the superposition state exists. It wiped the entire paradox under the rug by making definitions to hide the paradox.

The methods for investigating entanglement have been around since the early 1980's. Alain Aspect was the first to test Bell's inequality which is based on the EPR 'paradox'. He showed that the 'paradoxical' behaviour of particles was a reality. I can assure you from first hand experience that the Copenhagen school is not taught at University. Only the maths is taught. Students are free to choose from any of the 20+ interpretations they like. The equations give the same answers irrespective of interpretation. Also there is not and never has a been a taboo on discussion on interpretation hence the 20+ versions out there. What annoys quantum physicists is when the word quantum is used to magically prove some ridiculous assertion about the power of holistic medicine for example.

I agree that quantum physics generates much bs speculation that gets very mystical by us lay people, but again the question is why particles behave the way they do. Physics has address how they behave to the point that QM is the worlds most successful Theory of all times. Entanglement is part of the how they behave, not the why they behave that way.

It is fair to say that since Einstein there have been many challenges to QM and there have been different hypothesis/schools that do try to explain the deeper question of why, but if a Physics doctoral candidate suggested she write a dissertation on the role of the conscious observer in decoherence, it would be a death knell to a career in education. Heck even a dissertation on pilot wave theory would be strongly discouraged. The entire physicist community has a problem of discouraging any work on the why question. It wipes that question from memory. Even you understand the important of the superposition state in quantum computing. What exactly is that state and how can a particle be on both path a and path b until I look at it then which it is only on one or the other. A great mystery whether one accepts it as a mystery or not.

The why question is what will move the science forward. The question of consciousness needs to be examined as to whether it plays a role in decoherence among other things.

As we slowly gain knowledge about the superposition state via weak measurement, it becomes very proper to start exploring why a particle has the potential of being in a superposition then suddenly have a well defined property, such as position.

I think it is important to bear in mind that any measurement that reduces uncertainty of one property will automatically cause another property to increase in uncertainty. So particles are in essence always in a superposition, its just that when we say collapse the superposition of waves to do with position we create a superposition of waves to do with momentum, thus keeping the product of uncertainty above a minimum value of about h.

The discussion is opening up in educated circles and quite frankly educated circles that suppressed questioning it for decades should be ashamed.



This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done.

Nothing in quantum physics is obvious. In fact much of classical physics is counter intuitive. Aristotle created science from just his intuition. Most of the work he produced was rubbish.

Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

This video shows some good physics but then extrapolates ideas beyond reason.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 8:46:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 4:47:34 PM, Such wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...

Hehe, too out there for this group? You must be new here.

Anyway, I was thinking about this, and reading others' responses while mulling, when something occurred to me.

So, in the quantum world, particles communicate and often move at speeds much closer to light than everything in the macro world. In the macro world, all of these things appear in stasis, because of the speeds of their interactions.

But, given the relativity of time as it relates to energy and velocity, and the fact that space and time are essentially different aspects of the same energy flux, it makes sense that on a quantum level, time has little to no meaning. Things move and change at such a rate that there is hardly any duration of time elapsed between states and hardly any transference of space between movement -- and this is the basis of superposition.

In such a universe in which time and place have little to no meaning, it makes sense that all possible states and positions exist at once simultaneously. Observing those states at a given moment or position, therefore, would be less realized potential and more a recording, like a photograph. We see one out of all potential realities, because this is the reality we activate based on our observation of time and our influence in the history of an object we can manipulate. However, this realized potential is intrinsic and intertwined, because we are comprised of those same components and are thus a part of that same reality. Therefore, it is less that we are affecting reality, and instead, that we are a single unit linking a web of potentialities that exist. What we observe as time duration is only a string on potentialities of which we are a part. What we observe as position is only that as it relates to our own position, which is inevitable, but only as us, given our contribution to the potential reality in which we exist.

This moment -- perhaps we are a part of an infinite number of moments, and there are an infinite number of potential realities in which our position and moment are occupied by an entirely different being, or object (or nothing whatsoever), and those realities exhibit an entirely different state of all the same exact things. Or, at least, all the same particles. I imagine everything else would manifest as entirely different. So many variables arising from such a rudimentary level means, at least to me, that the actual macrocosmic manifestation of it would have an immeasurable potential for perceivable differences.

Anyway, that occurred to me, and in writing it out, it rings a certain tone truer than other propositions -- especially those that suggest a member of the same reality and same composition must see the rest of reality for it to be real.

Nice, makes sense to me.
That is why, I'm sure, Schrodinger derided the proposition in the first place.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 8:44:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...
I've tried to learn the concepts of QM so I will give this a try. As I understand it, it isn't a conscious observer, but the act of observing, machine included. This has gotten more play than it deserves. A photon in wave form heads to the double slits. In order to see what happens, one must interact with the wave, (remember we are talking about a single tiny photon) in order to observe it's behavior. Since the photon is so small, the observing interaction collapses the wave and it becomes a particle. This seem weird to us, because when we observe a baseball, it has no effect. This is because the baseball is very large compared to the photon. There is nothing weird going on really. A mechanic device designed to observe is what collapses the wave. QFT helps make sense of this if you wish to dive into that subject.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 10:22:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/29/2015 8:44:37 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 1/16/2015 7:23:08 AM, drpiek wrote:
In Quantum Physics there is a debate if a conscious observer is what causes the collapse of a wave function. This supports the idea of God and that we collectively create our own realities. To me it seems obvious that the collapse of a wave to a particle is caused when the wave smashes into other waves or particles from studying the experiments that have been done. Any QP geeks here or is this too out there for this group? Here is a cute little animation showing the double slit experiment. https://www.youtube.com...
I've tried to learn the concepts of QM so I will give this a try. As I understand it, it isn't a conscious observer, but the act of observing, machine included. This has gotten more play than it deserves. A photon in wave form heads to the double slits. In order to see what happens, one must interact with the wave, (remember we are talking about a single tiny photon) in order to observe it's behavior. Since the photon is so small, the observing interaction collapses the wave and it becomes a particle. This seem weird to us, because when we observe a baseball, it has no effect. This is because the baseball is very large compared to the photon. There is nothing weird going on really. A mechanic device designed to observe is what collapses the wave. QFT helps make sense of this if you wish to dive into that subject.

I agree, The only way we have devised to make a measurement is by shooting photons or other particles at the wave. For a baseball it is being bombarded with photons from the sun and they simply allow us to see the baseball. At the quantum level it is like shooting a bb going the speed of light at a baseball and we think the fact that our observation of the process affecting it is weird.

But then again it does not matter where we put the measurement. Before or after the slits, we get the same result. That's a bit weird.