|
tokinman21
Stranger

Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 2,021
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
The Measurement Problem
#14914831 - 08/13/11 06:32 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, so this is something modern quantum physics is as of yet unable to solve. Essentially evidence points to the idea that when matter is not being observed, it is not in its normal condition which we would consider to be matter. Rather, it is spread out across the universe and comes together only when observed.
Does anybody else realize the significance of this? The theory has been present for decades, but the way I look at it if the theory were to prove correct that would be proof of God! If matter can only come together when observed, then for matter to have come together in the first place the universe itself would have to have been conscious, right?
As for why it wouldn't automatically come together now, that would be anybody's guess, but it seems to me that at some point the universe itself would have had to have consciously observed the matter for it to form well enough to create other consciousness. Perhaps the Mayans were right in their "chain of consciousness" theology, that would be my best guess. It would then make sense, too, because as other consciousnesses were formed the universe's consciousness would be split and perhaps unable to bring the matter together on its own.
Your thoughts?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: tokinman21]
#14915251 - 08/13/11 09:37 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
|
JT


Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 7,027
Loc: athens
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14915429 - 08/13/11 10:45 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I've heard of this before, but not in relation to matter exactly. More like, an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom exists in many possible orbits at agiven time. Only when we try to pinpoint the exact orbit it is following does one particular orbit emergeasthe electron's true orbit at that time. I don't know if this means that it literally exists in all possible orbits or if we just can't tell the difference until we measure it though. Would be interesting to see someone knowledgable post about this.
|
tokinman21
Stranger

Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 2,021
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14915430 - 08/13/11 10:45 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
How can there be observation without consciousness? An unconscious observer isn't really an observer at all, is it?
|
Dr Cid
Boss


Registered: 05/09/11
Posts: 357
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: tokinman21]
#14915816 - 08/13/11 12:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If no one is observing how would you know if it is there or isn't there?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
--------------------
Different is the new normal
|
AgingHippy
Flwr Pwr



Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 15,613
Loc: Necropolis
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: tokinman21]
#14915853 - 08/13/11 01:05 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
tokinman21 said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
How can there be observation without consciousness? An unconscious observer isn't really an observer at all, is it?
does a camera not observe if it records information that it receives from visual input?
|
Dr Cid
Boss


Registered: 05/09/11
Posts: 357
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: AgingHippy]
#14915946 - 08/13/11 01:36 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
WHAT THE SHIT!? THIS THREAD IS BLOWING MY MIND
--------------------
Different is the new normal
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14917274 - 08/13/11 07:07 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
There is a definite problem in defining what exactly constitutes an observation. Obviously, by the time we perceive the results of a measurement, the measurement has occurred. But, if we try to determine a priori where along the chain from the interaction of the system with our measurement apparatus on the atomic level up to the level of our brains actually interpreting the data, it gets hazy.
Mathematically, all you get is increasing entanglement all the way up to the macro scale a la Schrödinger's cat. Somewhere along the line this breaks down, but the theory doesn't tell us where this happens. All it says is that when two particles interact, their wavefunctions become entangled and you get a single wavefunction. When a measurement occurs, this entanglement collapses. It says absolutely nothing about what actually constitutes a measurement, conscious or not, yet this seems to have real physical implications.
If you know, please enlighten us.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: tokinman21]
#14917295 - 08/13/11 07:10 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
tokinman21 said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
How can there be observation without consciousness? An unconscious observer isn't really an observer at all, is it?
What does it matter?
If you want to discuss philosophical impolications of the word conciosness or what 'observation' should mean, this really isn't the forum. There's nothing wrong with such a discussion, but it simply isn't science and more suited to the fairy dust forum.
Whether observation is the best word to describe the concept is irrelevant as the evidence says nothing about conciousness having any relevance. Observation in the sense of QM discussions means some interaction with the analyzed object capable of revealing any information about it if properly utilized. Perhaps they should call that concept sasquatch, but it doesn't change the evidence nor reality.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
#14917337 - 08/13/11 07:23 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Observation in the sense of QM discussions means some interaction with the analyzed object capable of revealing any information about it if properly utilized.
That's not a very useful definition. 
And it matters because in order to effectively use QM, one must know when to apply an operator corresponding to a measurement. It also matters when trying to avoid disturbing a system by accidentally measuring it.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14917389 - 08/13/11 07:37 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I'm not very usefull with QM, so that's probably the culprit. I was just trying to come up with some philosophical distinction between the concept the original poster was urging versus what is actually meant by "observed" in the lingo of popsci articles (or wherever he got his ideas from).
|
SuperD
Cacti junky


Registered: 10/05/03
Posts: 6,648
Loc: The bridgesii bridge
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
#14918098 - 08/13/11 10:25 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Apparently the observer does not need to be conscious when an observation occurs. The team that built the latest quantum computer mentioned that if a stray electron made it into the area where the quantum calculations are done, it messes everything up to the point where it is no longer functioning as a quantum computer. This is such a fascinating topic I really wish I had more in-depth knowledge about all of it.
--------------------
   D Manoa said: I need to stop spending all my money on plants and take up a cheaper hobby, like heroin. Looking for Rauhocereus riosaniensis seeds or live specimen(s), me if you have any for trade
Edited by SuperD (08/13/11 10:37 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14925610 - 08/15/11 11:50 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/16/16 10:25 PM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14925864 - 08/15/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think double slit is the same as the measurement problem...
The reason I think this is because I see no way of knowing which slit a photon goes though without blocking off one of the slits.
--------------------

|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
#14925917 - 08/15/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The measurement problem is about what causes wavefunction collapse or if the wavefunction collapse is 'objective' at all. The double slit is just a simple example of wavefunctions and collapse, you could make the same thought experiments from a variety of simple examples (the Aharonov–Bohm interferometer being another popular one). Photons are subtle, and harder to measure. But the double slit experiment works just as well with electrons. You can put a coil around each slit and measure a voltage when the electron passes through, so I think the thought experiment is fine and shows that consciousness is not needed for wavefucntion collapse.
|
tokinman21
Stranger

Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 2,021
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14926031 - 08/15/11 01:14 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: Take care to confuse observation with conscious observation.
There is a definite problem in defining what exactly constitutes an observation. Obviously, by the time we perceive the results of a measurement, the measurement has occurred. But, if we try to determine a priori where along the chain from the interaction of the system with our measurement apparatus on the atomic level up to the level of our brains actually interpreting the data, it gets hazy.
Mathematically, all you get is increasing entanglement all the way up to the macro scale a la Schrödinger's cat. Somewhere along the line this breaks down, but the theory doesn't tell us where this happens. All it says is that when two particles interact, their wavefunctions become entangled and you get a single wavefunction. When a measurement occurs, this entanglement collapses. It says absolutely nothing about what actually constitutes a measurement, conscious or not, yet this seems to have real physical implications.
If you know, please enlighten us. 
What does this have to do with consciousness though? What constitutes a measurement is not clear, but I see no evidence at all that consciousness is responsible. Quite the opposite... If you set up an apparatus to detect which slit, but dont look at the result - you still get collapse as evidence by the lack of interference pattern. So consciousness, as defined by humans being conscious and the apparatus being non-conscious, is ruled out as necessary for a measurement.
I often hear and read of the thought experiment 'Wigners Friend', but I honestly dont see how it implies that consciousness is required for collapse. It seems to side step the issue as far as I can tell, by having a conscious 'friend'.
If you could opine on wigner's friend or any failings on my thought experiement above, I would love to hear it.
Keep in mind though, time becomes sketchy in issues like this one. Does you looking at the collapse in the future cause it to happen in the past?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: tokinman21]
#14926073 - 08/15/11 01:24 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Keep in mind though, time becomes sketchy in issues like this one. Does you looking at the collapse in the future cause it to happen in the past?
The answer is no, because when you consciously observe the slit you do not see interference. The final observation of the screen is there in all cases and thus is does not play a role in what we observe. What does play a role is the observation at the slit, which is not there in all cases.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14926867 - 08/15/11 04:07 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: What does this have to do with consciousness though? What constitutes a measurement is not clear, but I see no evidence at all that consciousness is responsible.
Proponents of this theory argue that consciousness is required for a wavefunction collapse simply because there is no other adequate explanation. Since any measurement device is a part of the system being measured, QM considers the wavefunction of the instrument and the thing being studied as the same once they begin to interact. The only thing (one could posit) that is "outside" the system, and perhaps able to effect an actual wavefunction collapse, is our consciousness--if only because it is the one aspect of the system which is only very crappily understood.
The only alternative is an objective collapse theory, which is currently absolutely indistinguishable from above, yet is perhaps nearly as unsatisfactory.
Quote:
Quite the opposite... If you set up an apparatus to detect which slit, but dont look at the result - you still get collapse as evidence by the lack of interference pattern.
Do you? Or do you get a superposition of diffraction and interference pattern until you actually look at it at which point the wave function collapses? The evidence doesn't point to either or any interpretation. It feels wrong to involve a conscious entity, but the alternatives seem "wrong" as well.
Quote:
So consciousness, as defined by humans being conscious and the apparatus being non-conscious, is ruled out as necessary for a measurement.
Not at all. I don't think it's likely that consciousness is required for wavefunction collapse, because I don't really think of consciousness as a "thing", but that's just my opinion. There is no way to rule out any of the varying interpretations right now.
Quote:
I often hear and read of the thought experiment 'Wigners Friend', but I honestly dont see how it implies that consciousness is required for collapse. It seems to side step the issue as far as I can tell, by having a conscious 'friend'.
I hadn't heard about this thought experiment until today and I'm busy packing up and cleaning my apartment so I'll need some time to think about it a bit more. Fortunately, menial scrubbing activities provide a perfect background for this kind of thought.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
#14926899 - 08/15/11 04:19 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: The answer is no, because when you consciously observe the slit you do not see interference. The final observation of the screen is there in all cases and thus is does not play a role in what we observe.
But the system that you are observing at the end of each version of the experiment is different.
You have either (hypothetically):
-Electron wave function passes the slits where detectors are not installed, becomes entangled with the edges of the slits, propagates to the screen, becomes entangled with the screen particles' wave functions, or
-Electron wave function passes the slit area where detectors are installed, becomes entangled with the edges of the slits AND a detector, propagates to the screen, becomes entangled with the screen particles' wave functions.
Then someone looks at the screen, the wavefunction of the whole system collapses, and you see either of the possible patterns.
Yes, it seems ridiculous. But, as I said in my previous post, there is no satisfactory objective wave function collapse theory either.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14926968 - 08/15/11 04:39 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/15/16 10:26 AM)
|
|