Quantum Mechanics - Schools of interpretation

[Ginkgo]

The way the experiment is described is typically that 'even when the photons are fired on at a time, the detector builds up an interference pattern'. This gives the impression that photons are in fact particles, solid little balls, that don't know how to behave properly. Quite clearly, they are not.

They know you are watching them.

It's yer hypotheses non fingo, innit? For all that you can treat them like that mathematically, physicists are very reluctant to make any statement about what they think is physically happening. But, as noted in another thread, Robert Laughlin says: "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo"; 'particles' are neatly described as waves, perturbations, knots, twists, call them what you will, in that medium, but to say such an 'aether' exists is metaphysics, because it wouldn't make any difference to the observed data.

I guess the experimental data suggests with a reasonable degree of certainty that the quantum world is probabilistic.

[Ginkgo]

http://xkcd.com/1240/

On topic: I hope there are no physicists who still believe that consciousness plays a role in wave function collapse. But it certainly is an interesting thought experiment.

Some actually do, while others such as Penrose try to get around it.


The cartoon is interesting.

Today the idea of soul seems to have gone out of favour with philosophers. A dog can be regarded as being conscious because it has experience. As Thomas Nagel would say "There is something that it is like to be a dog."

[tillingborn]

They know you are watching them.

Who knows? Maybe Bohr wasn't joking when he said:"A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself."

I guess the experimental data suggests with a reasonable degree of certainty that the quantum world is probabilistic.

Well, there are all sorts of hidden variable theories. Again, who knows? Certainly we cannot predict quantum events with anything more than probability, but you have to admit, it is stunningly accurate probability.

Today the idea of soul seems to have gone out of favour with philosophers.

Actually, this ties in with what I was going to say to ArisingUK.

If it was good enough for the Democritus and Boyle then I'm going to find a Zuzian and Fredkin metaphysical model to fit and I think it'd also give you your 'relativistic aether'.

Well, yer gotta admit, neither Democritus or Boyle had access to the results of the Large Hadron Collider. I'm probably making this up, but it's the Frankenstein effect. Mary Shelley had been impressed with experiments in which detached frogs legs were made to twitch by applying a voltage. Along with many other people, she believed that electricity was the life force, a big enough dose of which could reanimate the dead. In a sense this is true, as in the case of defribrillators, but more generally, as some tasteless gifs have shown, the opposite is true.
Democritus, like most ancient Greeks thought that the force animating the universe was 'soul'. Fredkin espouses digital philosophy, which to be honest, I don't fully understand, but nonetheless suspect is a load of hooey. The point is, some people believe that the latest technology or theoretical trend explains everything. Frankly, any one of a large number of theories might be right and I'm quite certain that the truth is completely bonkers. In the meantime, I'm sticking with the simplest explanation until there is evidence that forces me to change my mind. Like what I was taught to.

[skakos]

Schrodinger equation for stationary states tells us that we can "measure" only values corresponding to eigenfunction of appropriate (math) operator. if the normalized square of wave function (solution of the Schrödinger equation) is accepting as a probability of the occurrence of certain status, then Schrodinger actually says that it is permissible only "measurement" (better: "interaction" - each measurement in the quantum world is brutal intervention / modification / interaction) that do not change the probability of density (continuity?) of the system state.

The actual term "collapse of the wave function" is similarly unhappy as the term "measurement". The wave function does not describe the global state of the system in fact, because if we measure the energy, such function is completely different of the case when in the same system is investigating for example angular momentum. If a quantum system interacts (for example is measured), it is the transition from potentially (uncertain) state to the particular (fixed) status. The system passes from the non-causal future to the definite past. Elements (stem cells?) of another, outer phase of the reality (of the future) are glued at the causally arranged past.

The Universe thus "crystalizes" from the "future". Quantum mechanics describes the thin layer of the "time" born, the point of "now" as a thin transition from the future to the history.

This is the essence of the "time" and the essence of the growth of Universe ...

I think this is the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. it requires consciousness to be imposed from outside of the system.

The best alternative seems to be regarding the wave as having self-collapsing potential. The actual collapse is then regarded as the moment of consciousness

But why deny consciousness and the role it plays in the universe?
Is there a specific reason to do that?
Is a "self-collapse" more rational and logical?

[tillingborn]

But why deny consciousness and the role it plays in the universe?

As Descartes showed, it is pointless denying consciousness. He was less successful arguing that it (as God) has a role in shaping reality. What piece of evidence do you think people who disagree with you have to account for?

[Arising_uk]

Well, yer gotta admit, neither Democritus or Boyle had access to the results of the Large Hadron Collider. ...

Which is what? The colliding of particles.

I'm probably making this up, but it's the Frankenstein effect. Mary Shelley had been impressed with experiments in which detached frogs legs were made to twitch by applying a voltage. Along with many other people, she believed that electricity was the life force, a big enough dose of which could reanimate the dead. In a sense this is true, as in the case of defribrillators, but more generally, as some tasteless gifs have shown, the opposite is true. ...

I agree, there is a long history of bad metaphors and metaphysics being built upon the terms of science.

Democritus, like most ancient Greeks thought that the force animating the universe was 'soul'. Fredkin espouses digital philosophy, which to be honest, I don't fully understand, but nonetheless suspect is a load of hooey. ...

Since I think most metaphysics is, I'd have to agree with you but Fredkin actually espouses Digital Physics and the Philosophy I think just fell out as recreation and enjoyment at the way the former can be applied to religion and metaphysics.

The point is, some people believe that the latest technology or theoretical trend explains everything. Frankly, any one of a large number of theories might be right and I'm quite certain that the truth is completely bonkers. In the meantime, I'm sticking with the simplest explanation until there is evidence that forces me to change my mind. Like what I was taught to.

We agree and I quite like your 'there is stuff that does the stuff that we appear to see the stuff doing'.

[Ginkgo]

sorry double post

[Ginkgo]

But why deny consciousness and the role it plays in the universe?
Is there a specific reason to do that?
Is a "self-collapse" more rational and logical?

[/quote]

Both interpretations seems to be equally rational and logical. I guess that some people think the Copenhagen interpretation will lead to the same old Cartesian problem of mind/body dualism. I would also guess that in order to overcome this problem some people opt for a physical explanation whereby self-collapse happens at a particular threshold limit (whatever that might be). Other that that, I don't really know what motivates people in this area.

[tillingborn]

Well, yer gotta admit, neither Democritus or Boyle had access to the results of the Large Hadron Collider. ...

Which is what? The colliding of particles.

Well, the clue is in the name; it's the Large Hadron Collider. You're jumping the gun a bit by describing them as particles. Fair dos, they're particles by definition, but that doesn't say anything about their structure. One of the problems in thinking in terms of particles is that the mass of the particles created can be greater than the combined mass of the particles that collided; I believe that is true of the suspected Higgs boson. Mathematically this is explained by Special Relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy, but it is hard to square with concepts of atom smashers. On the other hand, if you think in terms of waves and vortices in aether, it's simple enough to conceptualize waves crashing into each other at great speed and creating more than the sum of the parts; at least to my sloppy thinking. I think it may be analogous to these freak waves that occasionally swamp oil rigs or upend tankers the size of Cornwall.

Fredkin actually espouses Digital Physics and the Philosophy I think just fell out as recreation and enjoyment at the way the former can be applied to religion and metaphysics.

Clearly I'll have to look into it, but my kneejerk, dunno what I'm talking about reaction is that any digital interpretation of reality is cobblers. There are good reasons why matter and energy is quantized, but that's a far cry from digital (and quite possibly not what Fredkin says anyway.)

We agree and I quite like your 'there is stuff that does the stuff that we appear to see the stuff doing'.

Well, it's not rocket science, but it's something I can work with.

[jackles]

Unlocal consciousness.must be sizeless and there for be a never happened cause.in other words it nonlocality doesnt move in any terms.all energy moves in timespace.nonlocality is what moves the moving thing a presentation of energy in time and space.relative to nonlocality nothing actualy happens it just seems to happen.and thats a created moment.nonlocality is absolute fact causing fictional locality.fiction is an expression of fact.expressions of existance.

[skakos]

But why deny consciousness and the role it plays in the universe?
Is there a specific reason to do that?
Is a "self-collapse" more rational and logical?

Both interpretations seems to be equally rational and logical. I guess that some people think the Copenhagen interpretation will lead to the same old Cartesian problem of mind/body dualism. I would also guess that in order to overcome this problem some people opt for a physical explanation whereby self-collapse happens at a particular threshold limit (whatever that might be). Other that that, I don't really know what motivates people in this area.

I tend to disagree with any interpretation calling for something happening just... because!
Science looks for causes and it is really funny NOT to look for causes when it suits us.
The observer and his consciousness actually decide on how reality will manifest it self.
And this means that matter is a slave to consciousness, not the other way around...

[Cerveny]

But why deny consciousness and the role it plays in the universe?
Is there a specific reason to do that?
Is a "self-collapse" more rational and logical?

Both interpretations seems to be equally rational and logical. I guess that some people think the Copenhagen interpretation will lead to the same old Cartesian problem of mind/body dualism. I would also guess that in order to overcome this problem some people opt for a physical explanation whereby self-collapse happens at a particular threshold limit (whatever that might be). Other that that, I don't really know what motivates people in this area.

I tend to disagree with any interpretation calling for something happening just... because!
Science looks for causes and it is really funny NOT to look for causes when it suits us.
The observer and his consciousness actually decide on how reality will manifest it self.
And this means that matter is a slave to consciousness, not the other way around...

Im sorry, but I did not write it :(

[skakos]

I was referring to the possible solution that some people find in these phenomena: that self collapse with "no particular reason" (i.e. a reason which we have not found yet). I believe that such solutions stick to the "I do not believe in consciousness" dogmas underlying the opinions of these people. The effect of the observer is proven in QM. And I cannot really see how this can NOT be connected to consciousness...

[Cerveny]

It is difficult to understand how physicists can operate with such a vague to quack term like a "collapse of the wave function":
1. Wave function has no direct physical interpretation / foothold in the reality - there is no what can collapse - it is only a mathematical tool
2. No "collapse" happens during the interaction (measurement), but rather, on the contrary, the definition, fixation, selection of specific eigenvalues of appropriate operator comes.
3. "Collapse" is not a physical term
Quantum "measurement" - interaction - can be imagined as a blowing to the whistle: one specific tone (depending on the parameters of whistle and air density and speed) appears

[Mike Strand]

Tell me what's wrong with this interpretation:

I have two dice in a can and am rattling them around just before throwing them down on the table. The possible outcomes are 2 through 12 dots showing as the future observation, when the dice come to rest on the table, with various probabilities. Conceptually, there is a distribution of possible outcomes associated with my rattling can -- a "wave" function (probability distribution) of outcomes that "collapses" when I throw the dice onto the table and the dice settle down and stop moving.

Theoretically we could use the physics of mechanics to predict the outcome, if we knew all of the relevant data about the dice and can (their physical properties) and the forces involved in the shaking and rattling of the can. But this is impossible, so we build a probability model based on the assumption of equally probable (1/6) outcomes for the individual dice and the laws of probability for compound events. Of course, a physical die is not perfectly balanced, etc, but barring badly lopsided dice, the wave function describing all possible outcomes is usually good enough, assuming one or more of the dice don't get lost from a wild throw-down.