Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
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: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinetokinman21
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJT
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 7,027
Loc: athens Flag
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetokinman21
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDr 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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAgingHippy
Flwr Pwr
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 15,613
Loc: Necropolis Flag
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDr 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

:header:


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



Different is the new normal

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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]
    #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. :grin:

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: 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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: 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.  :wink:

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.

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: 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).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSuperD
Cacti junky
 User Gallery

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.


--------------------
:super:D
Manoa said:
I need to stop spending all my money on plants and take up a cheaper hobby, like heroin. :lol:

Looking for Rauhocereus riosaniensis seeds or live specimen(s), :pm: me if you have any for trade

Edited by SuperD (08/13/11 10:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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)

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]
    #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.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetokinman21
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. :grin:




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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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]
    #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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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]
    #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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14940277 - 08/17/11 11:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
All scientific theories and models are abstractions.  All of them.



Yes but some are more likely to yield useful data pertaining to testable, reproducible material phenomena, no?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14940295 - 08/17/11 11:56 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Yes.  And quantum theory yields the most accurate quantitative predictions and descriptions of our observations.  No observation has ever been made that is inconsistent with quantum theory, and all predictions agree with experiments to the extent of the experiment and predictions accuracy.

Quantum theory makes the earth is round theory look like a gross approximation.

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]
    #14940375 - 08/18/11 12:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Aright, just tell me you're not a multiverse guy...

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]
    #14940484 - 08/18/11 12:59 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Viveka, why do you not think that a cat is an observer? I think the catinabox experiment is best replaced with a person in a box expeirment, or a rock in a box experiment, for otherwise we suffer the dillema of asking whether the cat is observing its state or not. If it was, then it wouldnt matter whether someone opened the box or not.


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

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]
    #14941181 - 08/18/11 07:27 AM (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?




Depends what understand means.  In general this isn't neccesarily the goal in the sciences, but rather we try to derive predictable relationships between observable phenomena.  The model we derive is useful if it is consistent with observable reality, whether or not it actually represents it on a fundamental level: i.e. the law of gravitation is just as valid if unobservable monkeys are pushing things around or in any other unlikely scenario.  Moreover, we would observe the exact same thing regardless of what is 'really happening': if the Flying Spaghetti Monster (p.b.u.h.) let us know tomorrow that he created every species throughout time, it still wouldn't effect the validity of evolutionary theory.  What's actually going on is besides the point, whether we understand it or not.

I see you have not answered my question as to how you determine what's "really going on".  If you cannot figure out how to do this, how can you maintain its importance to science?


Quote:

One method towards figuring it out is discarding theories that do not accurately describe the mechanics of the phenomenon.




How does that help?  That's how we could figure out what isn't going on, not what is going on.  Without some means to observe what is 'actually happening' in our system, all the pruning in the world won't help, as the possible conceptual explanations are infinite.


Quote:

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




I don't know- if your asking whether its in a determined state when nobody's looking I would say that's more a philosophical than scientific question so long as our observations and predictions are repeatable.  If I can accept that there's no neccesary order of events occuring when moving between refrence frames I can certainly accept that things may or may not be defined before we look.  Personally I never really got why we the matter was so important since by definition its not observable, but then I don't know much about the physics of anything, let alone QM.

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]
    #14944019 - 08/18/11 06:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Viveka, why do you not think that a cat is an observer? I think the catinabox experiment is best replaced with a person in a box expeirment, or a rock in a box experiment, for otherwise we suffer the dillema of asking whether the cat is observing its state or not. If it was, then it wouldnt matter whether someone opened the box or not.


Schroedingers cat isn't an experiment, it's a thought exercise that is actually a pointed criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which seems to have become pervasive in pop culture more recently ever since that fucking what the bleep do we know movie came out and everyone starting trotting around the idea of superposition collapse as an actual causative factor in the unfolding of material phenomenon.  The abstraction is only relevant to our perspective, ie: the world will turn the same whether we observe it or not.  We don't even really know what light is but the light passing through slits will have the same effect on the wall before it regardless of our observation of it, provided our observation is unobtrusive, which it usually isn't, which is why all these awful ideas run rampant.  To believe otherwise is some form of delusional solipsism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14944040 - 08/18/11 06:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, that's just like your opinion man.

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]
    #14944190 - 08/18/11 07:38 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 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?



Depends what understand means.  In general this isn't neccesarily the goal in the sciences, but rather we try to derive predictable relationships between observable phenomena.  The model we derive is useful if it is consistent with observable reality, whether or not it actually represents it on a fundamental level: i.e. the law of gravitation is just as valid if unobservable monkeys are pushing things around or in any other unlikely scenario.  Moreover, we would observe the exact same thing regardless of what is 'really happening': if the Flying Spaghetti Monster (p.b.u.h.) let us know tomorrow that he created every species throughout time, it still wouldn't effect the validity of evolutionary theory.  What's actually going on is besides the point, whether we understand it or not.

I see you have not answered my question as to how you determine what's "really going on".  If you cannot figure out how to do this, how can you maintain its importance to science?



Define "really going on".  You took my words "really happens" in regards to the result of the double slit experiment and abstracted it into an absurd question.  Let's focus those word a bit, I asserted that wave function collapse does not happen in the chain of causality that results in the pattern observed.  Rather, wave function collapse is only an abstraction in reference to our perception.  The pattern that is classically observed on the plate, with our eyes and other instruments of perception, did not get there as a result of "wave function collapse".  "Wave function collapse" is a non event in the material world, ie: doesn't happen.  Does that answer your question?

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
One method towards figuring it out is discarding theories that do not accurately describe the mechanics of the phenomenon.




How does that help?  That's how we could figure out what isn't going on, not what is going on.  Without some means to observe what is 'actually happening' in our system, all the pruning in the world won't help, as the possible conceptual explanations are infinite.




The problem is, we have limited time, so if we spend all this time discussing material phenomenon as if it is actually subject to the effects of our observation then we'll have no time to address "what really happens" to use your words.

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

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




I don't know- if your asking whether its in a determined state when nobody's looking I would say that's more a philosophical than scientific question so long as our observations and predictions are repeatable.  If I can accept that there's no neccesary order of events occuring when moving between refrence frames I can certainly accept that things may or may not be defined before we look. 




I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.

Quote:

Personally I never really got why we the matter was so important since by definition its not observable, but then I don't know much about the physics of anything, let alone QM.



Nor do I, at least technically, but I diverge on the former point - I don't just think it's not important, I think framing consideration around it is toxic to a sober understanding of nature.

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]
    #14944203 - 08/18/11 07:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:

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]
    #14944533 - 08/18/11 08:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

viveka, i wonder how you come to the knowledge that the cat is trully alive or dead? I mean sure intuitively this is the case. But if we just for a moment assume the cat is not considered to be 'observing' the system, why are you so sure of this? After all, the best theory says that the cat is both alive and dead.

I have a strong feeling this is wrong but i wouldnt say it so certainly. It is totally consistent that the universe exists in superposition unti lconsciously processed. Its not solipsism because potentially every conscious being can collapse the 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: Noteworthy]
    #14944672 - 08/18/11 09:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Why does the cat's observation of the system have any bearing whatsoever on whether it's alive or dead?  If you lose consciousness, do you experience "life function collapse" because you are no longer observing your aliveness?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14944724 - 08/18/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:





No, because only what can happen happens in another universe.  Impossibilities dont happen anywhere.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: DieCommie]
    #14944804 - 08/18/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.






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

Signature (up to 750 characters).

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]
    #14945263 - 08/19/11 12:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:

Define "really going on".  You took my words "really happens" in regards to the result of the double slit experiment and abstracted it into an absurd question. 




What absurd question?  I simply asked how you would find out what's really going on and why you think that's important to science.  (For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on)

I didn't abstract anything so far as I can see: I asked what you were talking about and you confirmed that you were claiming "what's really going on" is the object of scientific investigation, i.e.:


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?




As for your question as to what "really going on" means, I'm referring to the fundamental interactions between physical objects that manifest the observed phenomena as opposed to practical models which allow accurate predictions of those phenomena regardless of whether they provide any accurate representation of the fundamental reality.

Quote:

Let's focus those word a bit, I asserted that wave function collapse does not happen in the chain of causality that results in the pattern observed.  Rather, wave function collapse is only an abstraction in reference to our perception.  The pattern that is classically observed on the plate, with our eyes and other instruments of perception, did not get there as a result of "wave function collapse".  "Wave function collapse" is a non event in the material world, ie: doesn't happen.  Does that answer your question?




No, I don't know what relevance this discussion has.

I've always treated the interpretations of QM and everything else to be simply models and simplistic reproductions of what actually occurs that may or many not represent reality.  Whether wave function collapse describes a real phenomena doesn't matter from a scientific standpoint per se.  As said earlier: science is about deriving useful information about the phenomena we observe which allows us to predict them.  "reality" is both not the point and not subject to investigation as far as I can tell, because all we can do is prove relationships and reject inaccurate models.

Quote:

Viveka said:

The problem is, we have limited time, so if we spend all this time discussing material phenomenon as if it is actually subject to the effects of our observation then we'll have no time to address "what really happens" to use your words.




Why?  Just because time periods are finite does not mean any particular investigation cannot be completed. 

Given that it is accepted that material phenomena do depend on our observations, and this has been proven in many instances, I don't get why you'd represent this as doubtful, i.e. saying: "if it is actually subject to the effects of our observations".  We've tested the uncertainty principle many times and found it to be accurate, so why the doubt?

Quote:

johnm214 said:

I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.




What evidence do you have of this?  This seems to be one of those things we cannot know and so just have to make assumptions about.  I don't see how you could claim to actually know one way or the other.  Just like how science presumes the laws of the universe are the same anywhere in the universe or at any time, until evidence otherwise demonstrates, the question of whether things occur when we don't observe them can not be scientifically answered.  As science depends on observation, and any observation of the even would be an observation, asking what happens when we don't observe is an unanswerable question.  For that reason we simply make assumptions.

This seems similar to the question of whether the world goes away when we don't observe it.  Since the expected observations are the same in either case, and therefore the matter is inherently unfalsifiable, its simply a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

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]
    #14945959 - 08/19/11 05:47 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Why does the cat's observation of the system have any bearing whatsoever on whether it's alive or dead?  If you lose consciousness, do you experience "life function collapse" because you are no longer observing your aliveness?




i dunno what life function collapse is...

if the cat is an observer like us then it would determine its alive state, assumedly.
if we open the box and see one state, then the cat also sees one state without having to open the box.
but if the cat is not considered to be a significant observer, then the system simply is not 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: Noteworthy]
    #14953550 - 08/20/11 06:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on


Why don't you just get to your point instead of insisting that I answer some entirely vague question?  "What's really going on" - those are your words so why don't you answer what they are supposed to mean?  I already clarified what I was talking about regarding the double slit experiment and "what happens" to cause the plate to appear as it does.  What part of that didn't you understand? 

I'll even humor you further and answer that we can't ever deduce "what's really going on", especially since who even knows what you mean by that, however I do think we can accurately assert something concerning a situation with reasonably clear parameters like a lab experiment and it's results.  In this case I assert that the experimenter's observation of the experiment is not part of the chain of causality that produces the result - a pattern printed onto a plate.  Do you feel the need to repeat your question a fourth time?

Quote:

I'm referring to the fundamental interactions between physical objects that manifest the observed phenomena



Right, that's what I'm talking about too, as opposed to perceptions of phenomena that would occur regardless of if they were observed or not or any other layers of interpretation placed on it by an observer.

Quote:

    Quote:
    johnm214 said:

    I'm saying an "event" "happens" just as it does regardless of whether we observe it or define it.  Everything else is just abstraction about what we perceive and interpret.



What evidence do you have of this?  This seems to be one of those things we cannot know and so just have to make assumptions about.  I don't see how you could claim to actually know one way or the other.  Just like how science presumes the laws of the universe are the same anywhere in the universe or at any time, until evidence otherwise demonstrates, the question of whether things occur when we don't observe them can not be scientifically answered.  As science depends on observation, and any observation of the even would be an observation, asking what happens when we don't observe is an unanswerable question.  For that reason we simply make assumptions.

This seems similar to the question of whether the world goes away when we don't observe it.  Since the expected observations are the same in either case, and therefore the matter is inherently unfalsifiable, its simply a philosophical question and not a scientific one.



Do you believe the world will cease to exist when you die?  I don't.

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]
    #14953554 - 08/20/11 06:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, that's just like your opinion man.



And in the many-worlds interpretation, wouldn't my opinion be rendered as absolute truth in some dimension :nut:





No, because only what can happen happens in another universe.  Impossibilities dont happen anywhere.




:rimshot:

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]
    #14953588 - 08/20/11 06:11 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

if the cat is an observer like us then it would determine its alive state, assumedly.
if we open the box and see one state, then the cat also sees one state without having to open the box.
but if the cat is not considered to be a significant observer, then the system simply is not observed.



Scratchin' my head here...

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]
    #14953768 - 08/20/11 06:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Quote:

For the third time now, I'll repeat my question as to how one could ever deduce what's really going on


Why don't you just get to your point instead of insisting that I answer some entirely vague question?  "What's really going on" - those are your words so why don't you answer what they are supposed to mean?  I already clarified what I was talking about regarding the double slit experiment and "what happens" to cause the plate to appear as it does.  What part of that didn't you understand? 




Why have you concluded that I didn't understand your clarification?  I simply repeated that question you have not yet answered.  You allege that they are my words, which of course they are, but as I have previously shown, they are words that you endorsed. 

You now ask me to "answer what they are supposed to mean", yet you did so previously and I complied.  As you've not alleged any deficiency in my prior explanation I'm at a loss to understand this request unless you didn't notice that I answered this previously.

Quote:

I'll even humor you further and answer that we can't ever deduce "what's really going on", especially since who even knows what you mean by that, however I do think we can accurately assert something concerning a situation with reasonably clear parameters like a lab experiment and it's results.




Again, I already answered your question as to what the concept of what's really going on means: the fundamental processes, interactions, which the system undergoes to produce the phenomena of interest.  Once more you appeal to some ambiguity but don't even allege any insufficiency in my previous answer. 

How does "accurately assert something concerning a situation" have any relevance to what's really going on, fundamentally?  This seems an entirely seperate concept from what I was asking.  For example we can measure time and position values for an object and derive that F=ma, yet this result is consistant with an infinite number of lower order processes which produce this relationship.  That the relation between force, mass, and acceleration holds does not provide us with any insight into what is actually happening fundamentally, perhaps there are any number of relevant process which might be represented as additional terms in this equation but which cancel out to F=ma.  Anything could be going on, we simply don't know.  (Einstein's later corrections demonstrate this aptly)



 
Quote:

In this case I assert that the experimenter's observation of the experiment is not part of the chain of causality that produces the result - a pattern printed onto a plate.  Do you feel the need to repeat your question a fourth time?





Yes.  What is the trouble with it?

As for your claim that the observation does not produce, therefore affect, the observed result, then how do you observe?  The uncertainty principle would seem to suggest any observation utilizing a medium with momentum would necessarily disturb the system and thus alter the system and the results to an unknowable extent, bounded by the uncertainty principle.  How do you avoid disturbing the system and therefore the results?


Quote:

 

Do you believe the world will cease to exist when you die?  I don't.




No I don't believe that.  Please answer the question that was in the quote this statement followed.  I've essentially repeated it above though: how do you observe the results of the experiment without changing those results by the process of observing due to the uncertainty principle's consequences?

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]
    #14954719 - 08/20/11 11:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

How do you observe the results of the experiment without changing those results by the process of observing due to the uncertainty principle's consequences?



First, the uncertainty principle does not indicate that the process of observing changes the unfolding of any phenomenon.  It will affect our ability to measure multiple properties of an object of study simultaneously, such as the position and trajectory of a "photon" (or even to "accurately" measure any property at all) but this is no way means that observation affects the chain of causality.  It affects our ability to quantify but not the impact or end result in a causal chain, which in my original assertion is the pattern printed onto a plate.

"The results of the experiment" is a weasel-y concept since it could be interpreted that various measurements about the behavior of "photons" are "the results of the experiment".  To avoid such ambiguity, I will treat the pattern printed onto the plate as the results of the double slit experiment.  With that established, I do not agree with your assertion that the uncertainty principle tells us that observing will change the results of the experiment.  The experiment is set up one way, as in the original double slit setup, an interference pattern is printed.  The experiment is set up another way, with an apparatus to detect "individual particles of light" at the slit, and the pattern printed onto the plate is affected.  Did the results change because the behavior of the "light particles" was being "observed"?  If you equate an apparatus getting in the way of the path of light as "observing", then you could argue in the affirmative, as the What the Bleep Do We Know film does.  I think it's completely disingenuous to do so.  The same assertion is often extended to suggest that a human observing with their senses, ie: looking, can have the same effect, this has been displayed right here in this thread.  I think that's bogus.  We can even use Schroedinger's Cat to retroactively address this nonsense.

Hopefully, we're now a little bit closer to being able to communicate about this in any sort of coherent manner.  Clearly, we need to keep the definition of terms reined in tightly for that to work.  Words like "results", "observation", "happens" can be stretched to suit any whim so that seems to be the biggest problem we face.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Measurement Problem [Re: Viveka]
    #14954727 - 08/20/11 11:12 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Hopefully, we're now a little bit closer to being able to communicate about this in any sort of coherent manner.




I think you just need to realize that you reject mainstream quantum physics and have your own personal interpretation and idea of how things are and how observations should be modeled.  You would avoid confusion by prefacing your own ideas as such.

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

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


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 0.036 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 12 queries.