Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14927022 - 08/15/11 04:54 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
In that case, we collapse the wave function into some a state where slit detected and no interference correlate and no slit detected and interference correlate.  Take the subset where the slit was detected and there was no interference and note that there is no dependence on us viewing the result of the slit detection or letting that information dissolve into the surroundings - in either case we see no interference indicating that the unconscious observation by the detector was sufficient.




I get what you're saying, but it doesn't really matter if we intend to read the output of the detectors or not.  Presume that the entire system remains in a superposition until we actually look at the screen.  Then, when we observe the screen, we are making a measurement on the system, the outcome of which depends on whether the electron paths were being detected or not.  Our observation must then collapse the wavefunction in a manner consistent with the current state of the system.  The outcome is thus exactly as it really happens.  And this outcome is consistent with either a consciousness-based or an objective collapse theory.

Quote:


The simple act of flooding your electron double slit experiment with light breaks the superposition and destroys the interference pattern.  Scale down the intensity of the light, and you scale down the intensity of your observed interference pattern.  No scaling down of consciousness is done here, only scaling the intensity of the light and as predicted the intensity of the interference pattern scales accordingly.




Could you link me to a write-up of this experiment or explain it in more detail?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #14928413 - 08/15/11 08:46 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I like this idea - the measurement aparatus is in superposition just like the situation... So consciousness is the best explanation (not a full explanation, because it doesnt tell us anything about how the collapse occurs, what speed it occurs, where it occurs, etc) - it is the best explanation because we are conscious of one state of reality rather than a superposition of many states of reality.


As for putting a measuring coil on one slit to measure voltage... well... thats just like blocking the path, because you are changing the path that the photons/electrons make. If you use electrons, the interference pattern will be destroyed when you place a detector, simply because the detector prevents the conditions necessary for an interference pattern.
Or is there something missing here?


Finally: the big question is: CAN you tell by looking at some results of an experiment, whether the system has been observed at any point? Could you set up an experiment to measure how much the experiment has been observed?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14929197 - 08/15/11 11:23 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
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.




It doesnt seem that ridiculous, I think that is how I am viewing it.  You can break the superposition between us and the detector without cluing us in as to which slit was detected.  In that case, we collapse the wave function into some a state where slit detected and no interference correlate and no slit detected and interference correlate.  Take the subset where the slit was detected and there was no interference and note that there is no dependence on us viewing the result of the slit detection or letting that information dissolve into the surroundings - in either case we see no interference indicating that the unconscious observation by the detector was sufficient.


The simple act of flooding your electron double slit experiment with light breaks the superposition and destroys the interference pattern.  Scale down the intensity of the light, and you scale down the intensity of your observed interference pattern.  No scaling down of consciousness is done here, only scaling the intensity of the light and as predicted the intensity of the interference pattern scales accordingly.




Wait a minute...the thing in question is not whether or not an interference pattern happens...that is always the case in the double slit experiment, an interference pattern, no?  Damn that "What the Bleep Do We Know" Ramtha cult film and other hoodoo for asserting otherwise.  It's always an interference pattern.  It was only later when we tried observing the particles, ie: photon detectors, and it mucked up the interference pattern that some people went, "Wow, I are affecting the behavior of light particles by observing them!"  Well yeah, your stupid photon detectors got in the way then you fed us your BS interpretation of the results.  Then later they were still able to use the photon detectors and retain a bit more of the interference pattern, then they were like, "Ok, yeah, we were idiots before, we fucked up the photon detection thing the first coupla times, now we can see the interference pattern again and still make some "weak" observations, ie: measurements with these new and improved photon detectors without mucking up the interference pattern.

And another thing: Measuring individual photons?
:archiebunker:

Let's not forget that Schroedinger's Cat was a commentary on the absurdity of conclusions often made in that wonderful world of maths.  Double slit can illustrate the same argument.  No one really doubts that a person observing(not an instrument getting in the way of or a person's interpretation of lab data) has absolutely no bearing on how a beam of light behaves.  Intuition tells us so because we have vast amounts of knowledge and experience that tell us it's bogus.  Much like how no one really doubts that the cat in the box exists in some sort of classically describable state, ie:dead, dying, hungry or a reasonable, classical combination of such states, as opposed to a non-classical smear of all possible states, before the box is opened and observed. 

This latest bit about observation affecting the experiment only relates to the variation on the original experiment where particle detection is attempted.  And this is where the whole thing goes bad.  Anyone with me?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14935160 - 08/17/11 12:37 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Well yeah it seems that all 'observation' tools change the experimental setup, thus it is not that there are two identical systems, one observed and one not observed, but two different systems, one set up with detection/disruption elements, the other with less/different detection/disruption elements.

Eg. You might be detecting electrons (thus absorbing energy from the system) on the back wall, or, on the back wall and also on a photon/electron detector. These two situations have different parameters of energy transformation, so we should expect that the results are different in each case. Namely, in the double slit experiment, either both slits allow particles to pass freely (thus being undetected), OR one slit allows free passage, while the other does not


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #14937737 - 08/17/11 03:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

.

Edited by DieCommie (11/10/16 07:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14939159 - 08/17/11 08:07 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Its not important, to the conscious collapse theory, whether you look at the screen or not, because if you dont look at the screen, youll never know what the wave collapsed into, and the information will be lost forever.

IF you keep the data stored somewhere to look at later, then that data (according to this theory) will remain in superposition unti lyou look at it. If you never look at the data, then once again, the information will never be utilised.

What I wonder is: why do you keep bringing up the interference pattern? The interference pattern is a seperate issue to wave function collapse... The interference pattern has to do with the nature of the wave-form, while the collapse has to do with the conversion from wave-form to particle nature...


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14939177 - 08/17/11 08:10 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The interference pattern is the evidence of no wave collapse.  A gaussain pattern is evidence of a collapse.  Thats why I bring it up, because it is what we look at to see if collapse has or hasnt happened (that is, if measurement has or hasnt happened).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14939592 - 08/17/11 09:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Its not important, to the conscious collapse theory, whether you look at the screen or not, because if you dont look at the screen, youll never know what the wave collapsed into, and the information will be lost forever.

IF you keep the data stored somewhere to look at later, then that data (according to this theory) will remain in superposition unti lyou look at it. If you never look at the data, then once again, the information will never be utilised.



The theory is stupid and wrong and should thus be discarded.  Do you also theorize that the cat in the death trap box is in superposition until someone opens the box?

Quote:


What I wonder is: why do you keep bringing up the interference pattern? The interference pattern is a seperate issue to wave function collapse... The interference pattern has to do with the nature of the wave-form, while the collapse has to do with the conversion from wave-form to particle nature...



What I wonder is, why do people keep bringing up wave function collapse in reference to the double slit experiment considering that it is a non-phenomenon, does not happen, and is an example of how over-abstraction leads to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of an actual event.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14939759 - 08/17/11 10:05 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
The interference pattern is the evidence of no wave collapse.  A gaussain pattern is evidence of a collapse.  Thats why I bring it up, because it is what we look at to see if collapse has or hasnt happened (that is, if measurement has or hasnt happened).




hang on a second... it seems like some terms are being used differently here...

When I consider the double slit experiment with open slits, the wave form creates an interference pattern. Then when we shoot a single photon, it hits the back wall, the primary measuring device. 'Measuring' the situation is the point at which the single photon gets absorbed. The collapse of the wave function in this case is when the wave (with interference pattern) 'collapses' to a single photon/electron/particle.

When one slit is open/ one slit is covered by a secondary measuring device, then the wave does not form an interference pattern because the situation does not provide the necessary conditions. But the wave is still there (just no interference pattern). Collapse of the wave function here is when the wave (without interference pattern) 'collapses' to a single particle either on the primary or secondary measuring device.

According to the terms used here, there is no sense in saying that an interference pattern is evidence of no wave collapse. The interference pattern is detected when we collapse the wave.

So do you mean that an interference pattern evidences 'no wave collapse' or merely 'no wave collapse prior to the measurement of the interference pattern' ?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14939795 - 08/17/11 10:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:

What I wonder is, why do people keep bringing up wave function collapse in reference to the double slit experiment considering that it is a non-phenomenon, does not happen, and is an example of how over-abstraction leads to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of an actual event.





They bring it up because its its part of various interpretations of the evidence that allow us to understand and thus predict what will happen in various situations.

What does "what really happens" have to do with anything?  How do you propose we figure that out?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
    #14939827 - 08/17/11 10:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I want to know how you can tell what 'really happens' if you arent appealing to scientific theory... Are you then appealing to your intuitions, or a religion, or something?

The science shows that the wave function exists. Yet we also see a single universe rather than the collection of states predicted by a wave function.

Therfor either the theory of the wave is wrong

or

The wave is real, and is collapsing into a single state


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14939828 - 08/17/11 10:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Right, Im talking about at the slit because that is where we are applying different measurement types to produce different results.  The observation of the screen is the same in all cases, and thus cannot be appealed to as a cause of our different observations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14939872 - 08/17/11 10:21 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Would you agree that it is senseless to talk of a paradigm being 'measured' or 'not measured'? ..given that the 'measured' experiment would be a different experiment to the 'not measured' experiment, and given that every experiment is necessarily measured in some way or another...?

Thus there is no sense of 'measuring' the interference pattern or not measuring it, there is only a sense of measuring an experiment where an interference pattern is possible, or measuring an experiment where an interference pattern is not possible... (rather than saying that measurement destroys the interference pattern)


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: johnm214]
    #14939894 - 08/17/11 10:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Viveka said:

What I wonder is, why do people keep bringing up wave function collapse in reference to the double slit experiment considering that it is a non-phenomenon, does not happen, and is an example of how over-abstraction leads to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of an actual event.





They bring it up because its its part of various interpretations of the evidence that allow us to understand and thus predict what will happen in various situations.

What does "what really happens" have to do with anything?  How do you propose we figure that out?



Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?  One method towards figuring it out is discarding theories that do not accurately describe the mechanics of the phenomenon.  Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14939926 - 08/17/11 10:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Would you agree that it is senseless to talk of a paradigm being 'measured' or 'not measured'? ..given that the 'measured' experiment would be a different experiment to the 'not measured' experiment, and given that every experiment is necessarily measured in some way or another...?

Thus there is no sense of 'measuring' the interference pattern or not measuring it, there is only a sense of measuring an experiment where an interference pattern is possible, or measuring an experiment where an interference pattern is not possible... (rather than saying that measurement destroys the interference pattern)




No, I dont agree.  First off, Im not sure what you mean by a paradigm being measured.  Quantum theory is the paradigm, the electron is what gets measured.  Secondly, of course we need a different experiement.  That is how we get different results and can attempt to isolate the different variables that correlate with the different results.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14939951 - 08/17/11 10:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?




No, I dont think so.  What 'really happens' is a subject that will forever be relegated to spirtuality, religon or philosophy.  What really happens is not relevant in science, it is unknowable and, IMO, it is a relic from more simple minded times.


Quote:

Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?




Depends on when you measure the electron.  Sometimes never, sometimes at a slit, sometimes before of after a slit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14939969 - 08/17/11 10:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I would call the double slit experiment an experimental paradigm, whereby we release particles of energy into an environment involving slits with certain size relative to the wavelength of a particle, and measure the path of energy relative to the position and number of slits.


Quote:

Viveka said:
Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?




Well, in the double slit experiment, particles are 'shot' out one at a time. With one particle shot out, you get one particle recieved at the other end. However, upon shooting multiple particles we find that they always land in acordance to the wave function. Thus between shooting the particle and measuring it, there is a wave that exists, guiding the particle to its destination. The question is - when does this wave begin, and when does it 'collapse' again into a single particle?

The collapse occurs whenever a single particle is measured as being somewhere rather than somewhere else. It is called a collapse because the wave itself does not single out any position in particular, but describes the relative probability of each possible position. We dont measure the relative probabilities, we only measure the actual particle position at the point of (or some time after) the wave function collapse.

Of course, according to quantum mechanics, the collapse of one wave can only be considered the beginning of another. So whenever we measure anything to have a discrete position, we are collapsing a wave


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14940212 - 08/17/11 11:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
Well, if we are trying to understand a phenomenon in the material world it's pretty important to correctly understand "what really happens", don't you think?




No, I dont think so.  What 'really happens' is a subject that will forever be relegated to spirtuality, religon or philosophy.  What really happens is not relevant in science, it is unknowable and, IMO, it is a relic from more simple minded times.



Now you're just being obtuse.  We're still concerned with the phenomenon of the physical world and it's laws correct?  I  assert that a critical view of causality is more effective in helping us understand these than abstraction city.  "What really happens" was a concept termed by a different member regarding my assertion that wave function collapse is not an event in the causality of the double slit experiments' results.  "Wave function collapse" is pure abstraction.  Since when is causality more akin to spirituality, religion or philosophy than pure abstraction?  Is causality no longer a basic assumption of science?

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Viveka said: Tell me this, when does wave function collapse happen in the double slit experiment?




Depends on when you measure the electron.  Sometimes never, sometimes at a slit, sometimes before of after a slit.



So do you also think the cat is a smear of probabilities until someone opens the box?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14940250 - 08/17/11 11:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

All scientific theories and models are abstractions.  All of them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14940252 - 08/17/11 11:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The collapse occurs whenever a single particle is measured as being somewhere rather than somewhere else. It is called a collapse because the wave itself does not single out any position in particular, but describes the relative probability of each possible position. We dont measure the relative probabilities, we only measure the actual particle position at the point of (or some time after) the wave function collapse.

Of course, according to quantum mechanics, the collapse of one wave can only be considered the beginning of another. So whenever we measure anything to have a discrete position, we are collapsing a wave



It seems you are conflating the uncertainty principle and wave function collapse.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* So you think you know your math huh...
( 1 2 all )
Lana 5,264 29 04/30/03 06:20 PM
by ExtravagantDream
* Measuring the intensity of LIght Anonymous 746 6 05/17/03 10:23 AM
by matts
* computer problems thePatient 1,435 8 03/26/04 04:14 AM
by Seuss
* Why do I keep having this problem? User Exists 1,949 12 08/22/03 11:08 AM
by User Exists
* Black hole of Windows driver problems poke smot! 1,352 16 08/22/04 05:00 PM
by Ythan
* sound problem in linux Anonymous 954 12 07/14/04 10:10 PM
by monoamine
* computer problems blacksabbathrulz 1,405 11 02/06/04 02:17 AM
by Xochitl
* modem problems dog 1,215 9 10/03/03 09:54 PM
by dog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
5,530 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.