Quantum zeno effect (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, August 09, 2013, 21:18 (3913 days ago)
I wonder how Ruth's theory handles the zeno effect. It is another weirdness in the quantum world. The watched pot never boils. Measuring decay delays the decay.-http://physics.about.com/od/physicsqtot/g/QuantumZenoEffect.htm
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 21, 2013, 19:30 (3901 days ago) @ David Turell
More on using Zeno to help with quantum computing:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-paradox-seen-in-diamond&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130821
Quantum zeno effect
DAVID: More on using Zeno to help with quantum computing:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-paradox-seen-in-diamond&WT...-Once again, thank you for keeping us informed on so many fronts. Among the comments is the following by EyesWideOpen:-"When they measured the NV center in this way, the researchers found that the oscillation between the two states was disrupted ... just as would be expected if the quantum Zeno state were operating.-Analogy: Suppose I want to observe a cat walking around in the dark in my house. I shine a flashlight on it, and it remains in a seemingly frozen state as it hisses at me. The moment I stop observing it by turning off the flashlight, it proceeds to walk around the house again.-My literal observation did not freeze the cat. The bright light frighted it, and it hissed me as it hunched down, frozen in fear.-Whatever they're doing to measure the diamond's state is causing the effect they're seeing. Like the flashlight, there's a perfectly rational explanation. It is behaving "like" this paradox, but it has not proven it."-I don't know if EyesWideOpen is right or not, but I do find this kind of analogy extremely helpful. Perhaps Ruth might find it useful too for her new book. One other thought struck me on reading it: that panpsychism may have a role to play in these quantum effects. But I'm in no position to develop that thought!
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Thursday, August 22, 2013, 14:59 (3901 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Whatever they're doing to measure the diamond's state is causing the effect they're seeing. Like the flashlight, there's a perfectly rational explanation. It is behaving "like" this paradox, but it has not proven it." > > I don't know if EyesWideOpen is right or not, but I do find this kind of analogy extremely helpful. Perhaps Ruth might find it useful too for her new book. One other thought struck me on reading it: that panpsychism may have a role to play in these quantum effects. But I'm in no position to develop that thought!-Your panpsychism fantasy would make some sense in this context if it meant a purposeful universal consciousness which pervades all reality at all levels. I propose that the weirdness in QM is a sign of the universal consciousness at work.
Quantum zeno effect
EyesWideOpen [not dhw]: Whatever they're doing to measure the diamond's state is causing the effect they're seeing. Like the flashlight, there's a perfectly rational explanation. It is behaving "like" this paradox, but it has not proven it."-dhw: I don't know if EyesWideOpen is right or not, but I do find this kind of analogy extremely helpful. Perhaps Ruth might find it useful too for her new book. One other thought struck me on reading it: that panpsychism may have a role to play in these quantum effects. But I'm in no position to develop that thought!-DAVID: Your panpsychism fantasy would make some sense in this context if it meant a purposeful universal consciousness which pervades all reality at all levels. I propose that the weirdness in QM is a sign of the universal consciousness at work.-EyesWideOpen's analogy was the cat ending its activity when the observer turned his flashlight on it (but continuing when the flashlight was turned off). It's much like Ruth's emitter and absorber, with a real transaction only taking place when quanta pass between the two. If such transactions entail some kind of subjective quasi-intelligence (not necessarily anything like our own), you have almost an infinity of subjective quasi-intelligences performing almost an infinity of transactions. That is precisely what we have in the known living world. Not one single universal consciousness/intelligence, but countless individual consciousnesses/intelligences interacting. So why in the quantum world ... which nobody understands ... should the same principle be any more fantastic than a single consciousness/intelligence? In fact, which would you consider more likely to behave in these weird and wonderful ways: ONE universal consciousness, or countless individual consciousnesses interacting? -Before you counter by asking where the intelligences came from, please remember that you have no idea where your "universal intelligence" came from. If one explanation is fantasy, so are they all ... although one of them must be close to the truth.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Friday, August 23, 2013, 17:43 (3899 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:So why in the quantum world ... which nobody understands ... should the same principle be any more fantastic than a single consciousness/intelligence? In fact, which would you consider more likely to behave in these weird and wonderful ways: ONE universal consciousness, or countless individual consciousnesses interacting? > > Before you counter by asking where the intelligences came from, please remember that you have no idea where your "universal intelligence" came from. If one explanation is fantasy, so are they all ... although one of them must be close to the truth.-Yes, flights of fantasy. The universe follows an organization. The basic particles organized it and have created a universe that allows us to exist. There are underlying principles that yield to mathematical descriptions. And you propose a bunch of micro-consciousnesses running around? Who coordinates the menagerie? Or is it all amorphous? And how does that work? There must be a central organiziing force.
Quantum zeno effect
dhw: So why in the quantum world ... which nobody understands ... should the same principle [individual intelligences organizing themselves] be any more fantastic than a single consciousness/intelligence? D-AVID: Yes, flights of fantasy. The universe follows an organization. The basic particles organized it and have created a universe that allows us to exist. There are underlying principles that yield to mathematical descriptions. And you propose a bunch of micro-consciousnesses running around? Who coordinates the menagerie? Or is it all amorphous? And how does that work? There must be a central organiziing force.-Our bodies are a bunch of micro-consciousnesses in the form of cells and cell communities, and they themselves coordinate the "menagerie", and we are not amorphous, and we don't know how it works. Human society, the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom also consist of a bunch of micro-consciousnesses which coordinate themselves. How can you be so sure that the quantum world does not function along similar lines? You even say that "the basic particles organized" the universe so that they could form a zillion different combinations and ultimately give rise to life. If I argued that God gave particles the ability to work things out for themselves (as cells do in our bodies), would you dismiss the concept as "a bunch of micro-consciousnesses running around"? In fact, you may recall that this divinely inspired form of panpsychism underlay Frank's version of process theology, which resembles your panentheistic view of God being inside and outside everything.*** -How did it start and how does it work? We come back to the same dead end. I don't know if or how energy could have evolved into these countless quasi-intelligences. Nor do you know if or how energy could always have been a single and infinite intelligence. If one is a flight of fantasy, then so is the other. -***Out of interest, I have hunted through Frank's posts, to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks. The following is under "Problems with this section", 27 October 2009 at 00.52 (ugh, it was a long hunt!): "Everything is "made out of" God. When God "pulverizes" himself, the most fundamental "pieces" of himself are the fundamental particles of nature, whatever they are (strings? who knows!). Since the fundamental particles are little pieces of God, supremely unconscious pieces of God because they are so simple, it stands to reason that when they collect together into higher and higher forms, following their own nature and coming to a focus in a "higher" being, they become more and more conscious, eventually reaching the point where they can turn right around and look inside themselves and "see" God in his fullness down deep inside, in what we call mystical experience." -This is precisely the form of panpsychist evolution (unconscious particles combining and eventually evolving consciousness) that I am describing and you are dismissing. Do you accept it on condition that the particles are "pieces of God"?
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Sunday, August 25, 2013, 02:37 (3898 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: FRANK ***Out of interest, I have hunted through Frank's posts, to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks. The following is under "Problems with this section", 27 October 2009 at 00.52 (ugh, it was a long hunt!): "Everything is "made out of" God. When God "pulverizes" himself, the most fundamental "pieces" of himself are the fundamental particles of nature, whatever they are (strings? who knows!). Since the fundamental particles are little pieces of God, supremely unconscious pieces of God because they are so simple, it stands to reason that when they collect together into higher and higher forms, following their own nature and coming to a focus in a "higher" being, they become more and more conscious, eventually reaching the point where they can turn right around and look inside themselves and "see" God in his fullness down deep inside, in what we call mystical experience." > > This is precisely the form of panpsychist evolution (unconscious particles combining and eventually evolving consciousness) that I am describing and you are dismissing. Do you accept it on condition that the particles are "pieces of God"?-I don't interpret God quite as Frank did. I don't think God ever pulverizes himself, but I belileve He is part of everything, but that part remains interconnected to all other parts. Frank's view and yours have no sense of organization and the universe is certainly organized. How do you get from discrete unrelated bits of consciousness to the big Bang and all that followed. Bits of consciousness coalesced to decide how to code DNA? Sorry. Won't buy it.
Quantum zeno effect
dhw: FRANK ***Out of interest, I have hunted through Frank's posts, to make sure my memory wasn't playing tricks. The following is under "Problems with this section", 27 October 2009 at 00.52 (ugh, it was a long hunt!): "Everything is "made out of" God. When God "pulverizes" himself, the most fundamental "pieces" of himself are the fundamental particles of nature, whatever they are (strings? who knows!). Since the fundamental particles are little pieces of God, supremely unconscious pieces of God because they are so simple, it stands to reason that when they collect together into higher and higher forms, following their own nature and coming to a focus in a "higher" being, they become more and more conscious, eventually reaching the point where they can turn right around and look inside themselves and "see" God in his fullness down deep inside, in what we call mystical experience." -This is precisely the form of panpsychist evolution (unconscious particles combining and eventually evolving consciousness) that I am describing and you are dismissing. Do you accept it on condition that the particles are "pieces of God"?-DAVID: I don't interpret God quite as Frank did. I don't think God ever pulverizes himself, but I belileve He is part of everything, but that part remains interconnected to all other parts. Frank's view and yours have no sense of organization and the universe is certainly organized. How do you get from discrete unrelated bits of consciousness to the big Bang and all that followed. Bits of consciousness coalesced to decide how to code DNA? Sorry. Won't buy it.-First of all, it's not my view. I don't have a view. But I am prepared to consider different views. If the big bang happened, what went bang? God himself? If God is "part of everything", God is part of every particle. According to you, "the basic particles organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist." If the God in all your particles remains connected to the God in all the other particles, we have panpsychism: some form of intelligence in every particle. The fact is that no matter what we believe, particles have coalesced to create the universe and us. You like to have it both ways: your God is outside them organizing them and inside them organizing them, though how this works nobody knows. If we substitute "intelligence" for "God", my hypothetical scenario has intelligence organizing all the "discrete" particles from inside, in the same way that our own "discrete" cells have intelligence inside them, coalescing to form our bodies. Again nobody knows how this works. Where did the original intelligence come from? Another unanswerable question, whether you believe in God or not.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Monday, August 26, 2013, 00:03 (3897 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:If the God in all your particles remains connected to the God in all the other particles, we have panpsychism: some form of intelligence in every particle. The fact is that no matter what we believe, particles have coalesced to create the universe and us. You like to have it both ways: your God is outside them organizing them and inside them organizing them, though how this works nobody knows. If we substitute "intelligence" for "God", my hypothetical scenario has intelligence organizing all the "discrete" particles from inside, in the same way that our own "discrete" cells have intelligence inside them, coalescing to form our bodies. Again nobody knows how this works. Where did the original intelligence come from? Another unanswerable question, whether you believe in God or not.-It does have an answer: God is both consciousness and intelligence and is the first cause, being eternal. The answer we do not know is how many times has He made a universe with humans in it? If He has been around for an infinity of time and each universe lasts about 100 billion years, as estimated ours will, a small part of infinity, then He has made an infinite number. Maybe we are the latest improvement, which means considering the way we humans act, he has got to try a lot more times.
Quantum zeno effect
dhw:If the God in all your particles remains connected to the God in all the other particles, we have panpsychism: some form of intelligence in every particle. The fact is that no matter what we believe, particles have coalesced to create the universe and us. You like to have it both ways: your God is outside them organizing them and inside them organizing them, though how this works nobody knows. If we substitute "intelligence" for "God", my hypothetical scenario has intelligence organizing all the "discrete" particles from inside, in the same way that our own "discrete" cells have intelligence inside them, coalescing to form our bodies. Again nobody knows how this works. Where did the original intelligence come from? Another unanswerable question, whether you believe in God or not.-DAVID: It does have an answer: God is both consciousness and intelligence and is the first cause, being eternal. The answer we do not know is how many times has He made a universe with humans in it? If He has been around for an infinity of time and each universe lasts about 100 billion years, as estimated ours will, a small part of infinity, then He has made an infinite number. Maybe we are the latest improvement, which means considering the way we humans act, he has got to try a lot more times.-An interesting digression, but it can't disguise the fact that you now realize you believe in intelligent particles which organized the universe, although earlier you dismissed the idea as "flights of fantasy" and "a bunch of micro-consciousnesses running around". Instead of calling them particles, we just have to call them godicles.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Monday, August 26, 2013, 17:26 (3896 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:If the God in all your particles remains connected to the God in all the other particles, we have panpsychism: some form of intelligence in every particle. The fact is that no matter what we believe, particles have coalesced to create the universe and us. > DAVID: It does have an answer: God is both consciousness and intelligence and is the first cause, being eternal. The answer we do not know is how many times has He made a universe with humans -> dhw: An interesting digression, but it can't disguise the fact that you now realize you believe in intelligent particles which organized the universe,-You are not recognizing that all those godicles are part of God and under his centralized control at all times. Which is why I put God in the quantum realm.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 27, 2013, 00:23 (3896 days ago) @ David Turell
> David: You are not recognizing that all those godicles are part of God and under his centralized control at all times. Which is why I put God in the quantum realm.-You might be interested in Lynn Margulis view that all living things are conscious to a degree, even without a brain:-http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154324
Quantum zeno effect
DAVID: You might be interested in Lynn Margulis view that all living things are conscious to a degree, even without a brain:-http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154324-Two significant quotes:-Of course, "bacterial awareness is more limited than that of a human mind," she says. "I don't want to seem simpleminded." Nonetheless, Margulis thinks all organisms, especially microscopic ones, deserve billing on the marquee of consciousness. "I've watched conscious bacteria for hours," she enthused recently, "seeing things about which everyone would scream if they saw them. Unbelievable diversity! A microscopic theater with thousands of beings all interacting, dying, killing, feeding, excreting, and sexually provoking each other--all activities most people think are so specifically human." Gazing at that scene, she says, "The idea that only people are conscious makes me laugh." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...16/ai_14372875-http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/55-I am indeed interested. Thank you. The above quotes speak for themselves. My own thinking has been greatly influenced by Margulis' emphasis on cooperation as a key to evolution, and if I remember rightly, it was she who called for investigation into the degree to which cells are conscious. (Even if it wasn't her, she clearly did her own investigating.) Once we accept the idea of intelligent cells combining into increasingly complex forms, all the mysteries of evolution disappear, and the only remaining puzzle is how it all started. Lynn Margulis was, of course, an agnostic.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 27, 2013, 21:41 (3895 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My own thinking has been greatly influenced by Margulis' emphasis on cooperation as a key to evolution, and if I remember rightly, it was she who called for investigation into the degree to which cells are conscious. -Since electrons, photons and atoms act as quanta, more than likely some degree of quantum consciousness exists in all living forms
Quantum zeno effect
For some reason, the second quote got lost when I copied and pasted my post last night. It's rich enough to keep researchers busy for decades, and it all makes perfect sense. For me she has revolutionized evolutionary thinking.-The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is "microbial consciousness." In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities. I have reconstructed an aspect of the origin of the neurotubule system by a hypothesis that can be directly tested. The idea is that the system of microtubules that became neurotubules has as its origin once-independent eubacteria of a very specific kind. Nothing, I claim, has ever been lost without a trace in evolution. The remains of the evolutionary process, the sequence that occurred that produced Cajal's neuron and other cells, live today. -http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/55
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 15:15 (3895 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For some reason, the second quote got lost when I copied and pasted my post last night. It's rich enough to keep researchers busy for decades, and it all makes perfect sense. For me she has revolutionized evolutionary thinking. > > The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is "microbial consciousness." In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities. I have reconstructed an aspect of the origin of the neurotubule system by a hypothesis that can be directly tested. The idea is that the system of microtubules that became neurotubules has as its origin once-independent eubacteria of a very specific kind. Nothing, I claim, has ever been lost without a trace in evolution. The remains of the evolutionary process, the sequence that occurred that produced Cajal's neuron and other cells, live today. > > http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/55-Two sides of the coin are consciousness-containing cells or consciously- directed cells. Hard to tell which unless you recognize the obvious teleology in the direction of complexity in evolution.
Quantum zeno effect
Lynn Margulis: "The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is "microbial consciousness." In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already "conscious" entities. I have reconstructed an aspect of the origin of the neurotubule system by a hypothesis that can be directly tested. The idea is that the system of microtubules that became neurotubules has as its origin once-independent eubacteria of a very specific kind. Nothing, I claim, has ever been lost without a trace in evolution. The remains of the evolutionary process, the sequence that occurred that produced Cajal's neuron and other cells, live today." http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/929/1/55-DAVID: Two sides of the coin are consciousness-containing cells or consciously- directed cells. Hard to tell which unless you recognize the obvious teleology in the direction of complexity in evolution.-We know there is complexity, and if cells have the ABILITY to combine,and combinations confer advantages, they will provide their own teleology, just as we humans have done in the course of our history. It doesn't have to be imposed on them or us from outside. But you are right, we can't tell whether they direct themselves from inside or are directed from outside. I find it hard to imagine your God fiddling around with every cell, and so even if I were a theist, I would still prefer the idea that there is a mechanism at work INSIDE the cell. This brings us to the alternatives: God created the mechanism for the cells to take their decisions, or they evolved the ability to do so. Of course if your God is part of every particle, every particle is a godicle. Back to Square One.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 18:19 (3894 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Two sides of the coin are consciousness-containing cells or consciously- directed cells. Hard to tell which unless you recognize the obvious teleology in the direction of complexity in evolution. > > dhw: We know there is complexity, and if cells have the ABILITY to combine,and combinations confer advantages, they will provide their own teleology, just as we humans have done in the course of our history. It doesn't have to be imposed on them or us from outside. But you are right, we can't tell whether they direct themselves from inside or are directed from outside. .... I would still prefer the idea that there is a mechanism at work INSIDE the cell. This brings us to the alternatives: God created the mechanism for the cells to take their decisions, or they evolved the ability to do so. Of course if your God is part of every particle, every particle is a godicle. Back to Square One.-I'm in agreement with you in part. I don't know whether God completely programmed cells to evolve on their own. I suspect not and at times He intervenes. We've discussed this before.
Quantum zeno effect
dhw: An interesting digression, but it can't disguise the fact that you now realize you believe in intelligent particles which organized the universe, although earlier you dismissed the idea as "flights of fantasy" and "a bunch of micto-consciousnesses running around." Instead of calling them particles, we just have to call them godicles.-DAVID: You are not recognizing that all those godicles are part of God and under his centralized control at all times. Which is why I put God in the quantum realm.-You put God in all realms, since he is "part of everything, but that part remains interconnected to all other parts." But I am happy with your response, as it removes one of your major objections to my panpsychist hypothesis. Naturally you insist that the particles are part of God and under his control ... you are a theist! ... but now the discussion no longer revolves around whether particles can have some kind of intelligence. We agree that they have. And we agree that particles "organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist." The question then becomes what is the source of the intelligence? And the idea that it may have evolved within the "discrete" particles, which then combined to organize the universe and life, is no more and no less fantastic than the idea that a superintelligence didn't evolve but has simply always been there. Stalemate.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 27, 2013, 21:36 (3895 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: You are not recognizing that all those godicles are part of God and under his centralized control at all times. Which is why I put God in the quantum realm. > > You put God in all realms, since he is "part of everything, but that part remains interconnected to all other parts." But I am happy with your response, as it removes one of your major objections to my panpsychist hypothesis. ..... Stalemate.-No stalemate. The quantum realm is its own special place. But we envision it as ONE realm of place. Therefore the non-locality property of quanta makes them all interconnected. No separate Godicles.
Quantum zeno effect
dhw: My own thinking has been greatly influenced by Margulis' emphasis on cooperation as a key to evolution, and if I remember rightly, it was she who called for investigation into the degree to which cells are conscious. -DAVID: Since electrons, photons and atoms act as quanta, more than likely some degree of quantum consciousness exists in all living forms.-And since you believe that God is "part of everything, but that part remains interconnected to all other parts", and God is consciousness, it stands to reason that consciousness is part of all particles, henceforth to be known as godicles. Or does it? (See below)-Dhw: [...] now the discussion no longer revolves around whether particles can have some kind of intelligence. We agree that they have. And we agree that particles "organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist." The question then becomes what is the source of the intelligence? And the idea that it may have evolved within the "discrete" particles, which then combined to organize the universe and life, is no more and no less fantastic than the idea that a superintelligence didn't evolve but has simply always been there. Stalemate.-DAVID: No stalemate. The quantum realm is its own special place. But we envision it as ONE realm of place. Therefore the non-locality property of quanta makes them all interconnected. No separate Godicles.-Do the godicles that "organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist", only refer to the particles in the quantum realm? Then what particles does the material universe consist of? And are you now saying that God is NOT part of the zillions of particles of which the universe is actually made, even though he is part of everything? And since nobody knows what is actually going on in the quantum world, how do you know that it is not possible for separate particles to be interconnected, as they are in our empirical world? Are you as confused as I am?
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 28, 2013, 18:25 (3894 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: No stalemate. The quantum realm is its own special place. But we envision it as ONE realm of place. Therefore the non-locality property of quanta makes them all interconnected. No separate Godicles. > > dhw: Do the godicles that "organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist", only refer to the particles in the quantum realm? Then what particles does the material universe consist of? And are you now saying that God is NOT part of the zillions of particles of which the universe is actually made, even though he is part of everything? And since nobody knows what is actually going on in the quantum world, how do you know that it is not possible for separate particles to be interconnected, as they are in our empirical world? Are you as confused as I am?-No I am not. Electrons, photons and atoms act as quantum particles. Matter is made up of of a family of particles discovered by smashing up matter. but everything is based in the quantum realm and is expressed in our level of reality as matter ( as a form of energy) or pure energy. God is basically in the quantum realm and concealed, but as a result He is part of everything and running everything.
Quantum zeno effect
Dhw: Do the godicles that "organized [the universe] and have created a universe that allows us to exist", only refer to the particles in the quantum realm? Then what particles does the material universe consist of? And are you now saying that God is NOT part of the zillions of particles of which the universe is actually made, even though he is part of everything? And since nobody knows what is actually going on in the quantum world, how do you know that it is not possible for separate particles to be interconnected, as they are in our empirical world? Are you as confused as I am?-DAVID: No I am not. Electrons, photons and atoms act as quantum particles. Matter is made up of a family of particles discovered by smashing up matter, but everything is based in the quantum realm and is expressed in our level of reality as matter (as a form of energy) or pure energy. God is basically in the quantum realm and concealed, but as a result He is part of everything and running everything.-Do I detect a certain nebulous quality in the word "basically"? Is God concealed in the quantum particles of my brain, running everything? If so, goodbye to free will. If he's not running my brain, i.e. my brain is running itself through my own individual consciousness, maybe the rest of my body, the rest of the plant and animal kingdom, the rest of Planet Earth, the rest of the universe are also running themselves through their own individual "consciousnesses". After all, if your God as conscious energy is "part of everything", you clearly agree that everything must contain conscious energy.
Quantum zeno effect
by David Turell , Thursday, August 29, 2013, 15:46 (3893 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Do I detect a certain nebulous quality in the word "basically"? Is God concealed in the quantum particles of my brain, running everything? If so, goodbye to free will. -A certain nebulosity has to appear. God is concealed and cannot be absolutly proven, but God gave us free will. We run our own brains and control our own consciousness, creating our own evil- > dhw: After all, if your God as conscious energy is "part of everything", you clearly agree that everything must contain conscious energy.-I don't think my table is conscious. But along with Margulis, living matter may contain some aspect of consciousness.
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 15:22 (3804 days ago) @ David Turell
Like the zeno effect, in this case the particle wave is separated from its polarization. The cheshire cat has a smile wihout the body:- "the physicists take things a step further and show that there really is a quantum Cheshire Cat by proposing another experiment that limits the measurement-induced disturbance. In this proposed experiment, the physicists take advantage of the tradeoff between disturbance and precision by performing a so-called "weak" measurement—one that is not very precise, but causes very little disturbance. -In this proposed set-up, the detectors used in the previous two experiments are replaced by a CCD camera and an optical element, both of which cause very little disturbance. Now, when the photon's location and polarization are measured simultaneously, the results are identical to those of the original experiment: the photon is in the left arm while the polarization is in the right arm. -This finding means that separating a property from its object truly is a feature of quantum mechanics, and not only for photons. The physicists predict that the effect also holds for an electron and its charge or spin, as well as for an atom and its internal energy. Yet while the proposed optical experiment can be implemented with current technology (and the researchers hope it soon will be), realizing the electron version is beyond the reach of current technology."-Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-quantum-cheshire-cats-paradoxes.html#jCp
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Friday, November 29, 2013, 02:13 (3802 days ago) @ David Turell
A fine comment from a book review on how weird it is:- http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html-Note that transactional interpretation is mentioned in passing and really given short shrift.
Quantum weirdness
DAVID: A fine comment from a book review on how weird it is:-http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html-I'm sorry, but Professor Henry's enthusiasm leaves me distinctly unenthusiastic. He has suddenly discovered Philosophical Idealism through quantum mechanics, and expects us all to throw common sense out of the window.-HENRY: No, the mystery is not quantum mechanics. The mystery is our own existence. Let me ask you: which would be easier to believe in (if you did not have irrefutable evidence for one of them): life after death, or your own existence? I do think that the latter is incomparably more improbable.-That our existence is a mystery can hardly be disputed. How does that make life after death incomparably more probable? How can you have a life after death without first having an existence? And what on Earth is the point of removing the irrefutable evidence from the equation? The answers may be obscurely rooted in the fact that Professor Henry is "convinced that the universe does not exist at all (except as mind)." -HENRY: Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something, anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of the observations (the so-called "universe"), here, first crack out of the box, we have, with the Henry interpretation, a solid and irrefutable success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does not treat of consciousness at all!-Sorry again, but why should the reality of my mind throw into question the reality of my body, my family, my house, and everything else around me? If Professor Henry steps in front of a bus, will he still be convinced that the universe only exists as mind?-HENRY: But does the Henry interpretation actually say anything? Does it have any meaning? It most certainly does! First, it means you can forget all the other interpretations that are on offer (and what a relief that is!) Second, once you understand that there is no universe out there, you are forced to face up to your personal responsibility. You now have a fundamental decision to make. You know that other people do not exist.-No I don't. The fact that "of course my mind exists" does not exclude other forms of existence.-HENRY: But, you must now decide whether their minds exist, as yours unquestionably does. Physics cannot assist you in this critical decision. Your stark choices are solipsism, or a leap of faith. -I have already decided that not only do their minds exist, but so do their bodies, and so does the material world I live in. This decision did not require any faith at all, because I have evidence, which TO ME is irrefutable, that they are as real as my mind. "TO ME" is important, because Professor Henry only asks us to take subjective decisions, and indeed those are the only kinds we can take, which makes all his own subjective speculations pretty pointless anyway.-HENRY: For a person (such as me) who has never before been religious, this leap of faith is not so easy. Indeed, I worry that my decision, which (let me relieve your mind) is that the reader's mind does exist, is too much influenced by my previous (but now seen to be utterly silly) belief that the reader's (as well as my own) mind was created by real electrons. I don't know what makes him so sure of his beliefs and disbeliefs, or what he thinks his mind is made of, or why he thinks it necessary to tell us all this in the first place. But if I knew Professor Henry, I would be extremely worried about his state of mind, and I would be even more worried about the effect of his state of mind on the people around him. My apologies again if this sounds rude. I do realize that since, like everyone else, I can't understand quantum mechanics, and common sense spoils such philosophical games, it would be more sensible for me to keep quiet. But what the hell, we're all in this together ... or at least, those of us who believe we all exist and there's a "this" to be in.
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Saturday, November 30, 2013, 00:04 (3801 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: That our existence is a mystery can hardly be disputed. How does that make life after death incomparably more probable? -Read more carefully. the word after more is IMprobable in his essay.-> dhw: The answers may be obscurely rooted in the fact that Professor Henry is "convinced that the universe does not exist at all (except as mind)." -His is one of the more extreme views of the role of conscousness, but there are a small but well-thoughtout group that adhere to this view. Remember the zeno effect. > > HENRY: Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something, anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of the observations (the so-called "universe"), here, first crack out of the box, we have, with the Henry interpretation, a solid and irrefutable success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does not treat of consciousness at all! > > dhw: Sorry again, but why should the reality of my mind throw into question the reality of my body, my family, my house, and everything else around me? If Professor Henry steps in front of a bus, will he still be convinced that the universe only exists as mind?-I think he is overemphasizing the true reality of our lived-in reality. What it is based on is quantum mechanics. As Einstein asked, if there is so much space in each atom, why is the table solid? But he knows his conscious mind is real. An important point. > > dhw: HENRY: But, you must now decide whether their minds exist, as yours unquestionably does. Physics cannot assist you in this critical decision. Your stark choices are solipsism, or a leap of faith. -I believe he is using the approach of the solipsist to make his point more forceble. > > dhw:HENRY: For a person (such as me) who has never before been religious, this leap of faith is not so easy. Indeed, I worry that my decision, which (let me relieve your mind) is that the reader's mind does exist, is too much influenced by my previous (but now seen to be utterly silly) belief that the reader's (as well as my own) mind was created by real electrons.-He is simply making the point that the source of consciousness cannot be simply a dance of electrons in the brain. > > dhw: My apologies again if this sounds rude. I do realize that since, like everyone else, I can't understand quantum mechanics, and common sense spoils such philosophical games, it would be more sensible for me to keep quiet. But what the hell, we're all in this together ... or at least, those of us who believe we all exist and there's a "this" to be in.-I do this to you to remind you that First Cause created our reality from a quicksand of quantum mechanics and it works, but it also requires consciousness to work, which tells us that the eventual advent of consciousness was built into the singularity before the Big Bang banged!
Quantum weirdness
dhw: That our existence is a mystery can hardly be disputed. How does that make life after death incomparably more probable? DAVID: Read more carefully. the word after more is IMprobable in his essay.-Read more carefully. Henry wrote: "Which would be easier to believe in [...]: life after death, or your own existence? I do think the latter is incomparably more improbable." He thinks the latter (our own existence) is incomparably more improbable, in which case life after death is incomparably more probable. I trust you will now share my scepticism.-dhw: The answers may be obscurely rooted in the fact that Professor Henry is "convinced that the universe does not exist at all (except as mind)." -DAVID: His is one of the more extreme views of the role of conscousness, but there are a small but well-thoughtout group that adhere to this view. Remember the zeno effect.-This is named after Zeno's paradox, which states that, "since an arrow in flight is not seen to move during any single instant, it cannot possibly be moving at all." (Wikipedia) You have to decide which level you want to think (and live) on. If you believe that Zeno's paradox and the quantum Zeno effect are more real than your own everyday experiences, stand in front of the arrow.-DAVID: I think he is overemphasizing the true reality of our lived-in reality. What it is based on is quantum mechanics. As Einstein asked, if there is so much space in each atom, why is the table solid? But he knows his conscious mind is real. An important point. -I think he is UNDERestimating the true reality of our lived-in reality. We all "know" that our conscious mind is real, just as we all "know" that our body and our surroundings are real and the table is solid. Even if you argue that this "knowledge" is subjective, I see no difference between the two "knowledges", and I can't see what is so important.-HENRY: But, you must now decide whether their minds exist, as yours unquestionably does. Physics cannot assist you in this critical decision. Your stark choices are solipsism, or a leap of faith. DAVID: I believe he is using the approach of the solipsist to make his point more forceble.-Most of us do not need a leap of faith at all, because the reality of other people's minds and bodies and of the world around us are confirmed virtually every waking moment of our lives. Only academics like Henry seem to have difficulty equating their experience with reality ... but I guess it's not a bad way to earn a living. DAVID: I do this to you to remind you that First Cause created our reality from a quicksand of quantum mechanics and it works, but it also requires consciousness to work, which tells us that the eventual advent of consciousness was built into the singularity before the Big Bang banged!-I think you can find far less woolly means to remind me of your beliefs.
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Saturday, November 30, 2013, 15:27 (3800 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:This is named after Zeno's paradox, which states that, "since an arrow in flight is not seen to move during any single instant, it cannot possibly be moving at all." (Wikipedia) You have to decide which level you want to think (and live) on. If you believe that Zeno's paradox and the quantum Zeno effect are more real than your own everyday experiences, stand in front of the arrow.-I won't choose the arrow, as the Zeno paradox is is false philosophy. The zeno effect is real, which forces you to accept the idea that human consciousness affects quantum mechanical processes. > > dhw: I think he is UNDERestimating the true reality of our lived-in reality. We all "know" that our conscious mind is real, just as we all "know" that our body and our surroundings are real and the table is solid. Even if you argue that this "knowledge" is subjective, I see no difference between the two "knowledges", and I can't see what is so important.-Only to recognize that everything we experience is at third hand in an interpretatiion by our neurons and emergent conscious undestanding. Yes, certainly real to us. > > dhw: I think you can find far less woolly means to remind me of your beliefs.-Quantum mechanics is woolly all by itself. I don't make the stuff up.
Quantum weirdness
dhw: This is named after Zeno's paradox, which states that, "since an arrow in flight is not seen to move during any single instant, it cannot possibly be moving at all." (Wikipedia) You have to decide which level you want to think (and live) on. If you believe that Zeno's paradox and the quantum Zeno effect are more real than your own everyday experiences, stand in front of the arrow.-DAVID: I won't choose the arrow, as the Zeno paradox is is false philosophy. The zeno effect is real, which forces you to accept the idea that human consciousness affects quantum mechanical processes.-My objection is to the suggestion that this level of reality is more real than our everyday reality.-dhw: I think he is UNDERestimating the true reality of our lived-in reality. We all "know" that our conscious mind is real, just as we all "know" that our body and our surroundings are real and the table is solid. Even if you argue that this "knowledge" is subjective, I see no difference between the two "knowledges", and I can't see what is so important.-DAVID: Only to recognize that everything we experience is at third hand in an interpretatiion by our neurons and emergent conscious undestanding. Yes, certainly real to us.-Why third hand? You seem to be separating "us" from our neurons and our consciousness. Yes, it's all interpretation, which = subjectivity. But there is also intersubjectivity, and that is as close as we can get to objectivity.
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Sunday, December 01, 2013, 21:05 (3799 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My objection is to the suggestion that this level of reality is more real than our everyday reality.-How do you know which is more real. They both are. But the quantum level undlies and creates the reality we live in. Just because you don't understand it don't downgrade the quantum level.- > DAVID: Only to recognize that everything we experience is at third hand in an interpretatiion by our neurons and emergent conscious undestanding. Yes, certainly real to us. > > dhw: Why third hand? You seem to be separating "us" from our neurons and our consciousness. Yes, it's all interpretation, which = subjectivity. But there is also intersubjectivity, and that is as close as we can get to objectivity.-third hand? Our senses are transmitted by ion electric currents, arrive at a complex of neurons and their dentrites and our consciousness interprets the messages and we see, we hear, we smell, we feel, etc. Yes, third hand, which is why the methodological materialists try to tell us we have no free will and the whole thing is mechanical. It all works seamlessly, so we have our sense of self ,but that is what makes it so amazing and so miraculous. That is why Dr. Henry wrote what he did, even though it so startled you. How does an inorganic universe create consciousness, if none is originally present? None of us can answer that, but we must recognize the philosophic importance of it.
Quantum weirdness
dhw: My objection is to the suggestion that this level of reality is more real than our everyday reality. DAVID: How do you know which is more real. They both are. But the quantum level undlies and creates the reality we live in. Just because you don't understand it don't downgrade the quantum level.-It's not little innocent me who is claiming that one is more real than the other! It's Professor Henry. For instance, reread the passage you misunderstood: "Which would be easier to believe in [...]: life after death, or your own existence? I do think the latter is incomparably more improbable." I object to his downgrading of everyday reality.-DAVID: Only to recognize that everything we experience is at third hand in an interpretatiion by our neurons and emergent conscious undestanding. Yes, certainly real to us.-dhw: Why third hand? You seem to be separating "us" from our neurons and our consciousness. Yes, it's all interpretation, which = subjectivity. But there is also intersubjectivity, and that is as close as we can get to objectivity.-DAVID: third hand? Our senses are transmitted by ion electric currents, arrive at a complex of neurons and their dentrites and our consciousness interprets the messages and we see, we hear, we smell, we feel, etc. Yes, third hand, which is why the methodological materialists try to tell us we have no free will and the whole thing is mechanical. It all works seamlessly, so we have our sense of self ,but that is what makes it so amazing and so miraculous. That is why Dr. Henry wrote what he did, even though it so startled you. How does an inorganic universe create consciousness, if none is originally present? None of us can answer that, but we must recognize the philosophic importance of it.-We have clearly been reading different articles. The one I read was all about Henry's discovery that the material universe doesn't exist, other than in our minds. After listing 9 quantum interpretations, he writes: "Do you find any of these interpretations satisfactory? I certainly do not. And our authors clearly do not. So, let me offer the Henry interpretation: There is no actually existing universe at all. The universe is purely mental." He then tells us to take the leap of faith needed to believe that other people's minds also exist. Let's not quibble about "third hand". Most of what you have written makes perfect sense, but it bears no relation to Henry's ramblings. You write "How does an inorganic universe create consciousness, if none is originally present?" A hugely important question. But once more, according to Henry there is no inorganic universe ... there is only mind. Incidentally, while you are championing statements Henry never wrote, I wonder what you think of this one, which he did write: "The authors make the critical point that religious belief flowing out of quantum mechanics does not in any way validate "intelligent design." (Indeed, in my view ID is insulting to GoS, who is surely not, as the authors emphasize, a tinkerer.)"
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Monday, December 02, 2013, 13:52 (3799 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We have clearly been reading different articles. The one I read was all about Henry's discovery that the material universe doesn't exist, other than in our minds. After listing 9 quantum interpretations, he writes: > "Do you find any of these interpretations satisfactory? I certainly do not. And our authors clearly do not. So, let me offer the Henry interpretation: There is no actually existing universe at all. The universe is purely mental."-He is simply expressing the theory that it requires consciousness to create our reality. His article reminds the rest of us that quantum weirdness drives some folks to strange conclusions. > dhw: He then tells us to take the leap of faith needed to believe that other people's minds also exist. Let's not quibble about "third hand". Most of what you have written makes perfect sense, but it bears no relation to Henry's ramblings. You write "How does an inorganic universe create consciousness, if none is originally present?" A hugely important question. But once more, according to Henry there is no inorganic universe ... there is only mind.-Again, a strange but interesting point of view, held by a number of folks. I can't remember off hand who but the idea that the universe can only exist if our minds are present goes back to the original quantum thinkers in the early 20th Century. > > dhw:Incidentally, while you are championing statements Henry never wrote, I wonder what you think of this one, which he did write: "The authors make the critical point that religious belief flowing out of quantum mechanics does not in any way validate "intelligent design." (Indeed, in my view ID is insulting to GoS, who is surely not, as the authors emphasize, a tinkerer.)"-Just his opinion, deism vs. theism. I never said when I presented this essay that I agreed with all of his thoughts. But as you see he represents one facit of the ways quantum madness is interpreted by philosophers. His thought represents a century of this type of thinking. By exposing yourself to this at least you can survey the range of theories about QM that Feynman says no one understands. Should make you feel better about your own confusion.
Quantum weirdness
Dhw: Most of what you have written makes perfect sense, but it bears no relation to Henry's ramblings. You write "How does an inorganic universe create consciousness, if none is originally present?" A hugely important question. But once more, according to Henry there is no inorganic universe ... there is only mind.-DAVID: Again, a strange but interesting point of view, held by a number of folks. I can't remember off hand who but the idea that the universe can only exist if our minds are present goes back to the original quantum thinkers in the early 20th Century.-I quoted this only in order to demonstrate the fact that your interpretation had no connection with Henry's ramblings. The Big Daddy of philosophical idealism was Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753), but don't tell Henry because he thinks it's a brand new concept.-dhw: Incidentally, while you are championing statements Henry never wrote, I wonder what you think of this one, which he did write: "The authors make the critical point that religious belief flowing out of quantum mechanics does not in any way validate "intelligent design." (Indeed, in my view ID is insulting to GoS, who is surely not, as the authors emphasize, a tinkerer.)"-DAVID: Just his opinion, deism vs. theism. I never said when I presented this essay that I agreed with all of his thoughts. But as you see he represents one facit of the ways quantum madness is interpreted by philosophers. His thought represents a century of this type of thinking. By exposing yourself to this at least you can survey the range of theories about QM that Feynman says no one understands. Should make you feel better about your own confusion.-I'm afraid Henry's enthusiastic promotion of old ideas dressed in quantum flannel does nothing for me at all, but if your touchingly subjective interpretation and defence of it makes you feel better about your own beliefs, it will have served a useful purpose.
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 03, 2013, 17:26 (3797 days ago) @ dhw
By exposing yourself to this at least you can survey the range of theories about QM that Feynman says no one understands. Should make you feel better about your own confusion.[/i] > > dhw: I'm afraid Henry's enthusiastic promotion of old ideas dressed in quantum flannel does nothing for me at all, but if your touchingly subjective interpretation and defence of it makes you feel better about your own beliefs, it will have served a useful purpose.-In a way it does. My confusion doesn't seem so strange, as I join the crowd of the confused. Poor Ruth!
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 10, 2013, 15:19 (3790 days ago) @ David Turell
Worm holes from entanglement. A strange computer simulation of a fifth dimension illustrating what Matt Strassler discusses, that is, strange worlds that might open up new theories. It has worked in the past but this one starts from string theory which hasn't gone anywhere, so this concept may be in that boat:-"Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks -- the building blocks of matter -- simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair. "The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm
Quantum weirdness
by David Turell , Sunday, January 05, 2014, 20:50 (3764 days ago) @ David Turell
Sorting out quarks:-http://www.livescience.com/42274-charm-quarks-turn-into-antiparticles.html?cmpid=556097
Quantum weirdness; monopoles
by David Turell , Thursday, January 30, 2014, 19:21 (3739 days ago) @ David Turell
Yes, Dirac's monopoles can be created:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-cloud-simulates-magnetic-monopole/?&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140130
Quantum weirdness; Schroedinger\'s cat
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 16:04 (3720 days ago) @ David Turell
Playing with the cat by peeking at it, box not fully open:-http://phys.org/news/2014-02-peeking-physicists-quantum-particles.html
Quantum weirdness; QBism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 19:44 (3684 days ago) @ David Turell
Bringing the observer back into the relationship. Recent interpretations have been excluding this issue:-http://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912-http://www.nature.com/news/be-here-now-1.14922?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140327-Excellent discussions
Quantum weirdness; informatoin and consciousness
by David Turell , Friday, March 28, 2014, 04:15 (3683 days ago) @ David Turell
http://social-epistemology.com/2014/03/22/a-conversation-with-henry-stapp-ryan-cochrane... Stapp's opinion:-"HS: I think the fantastic success and accuracy of QM, and its capacity to rationally encompass our conscious thoughts and their evident empirical capacity to influence our bodily behavior, together with the mind-like behavior of the physical aspects of the quantum mechanical description of nature — its sudden global jumps to new forms compatible with newly received information — suggest that the world is in closer accord with our conception of mind than with our conception of classically conceived matter."-Ah, a conbination of mind and information. My thoughts exactly.
Quantum weirdness; philosophic review
by David Turell , Thursday, April 03, 2014, 16:05 (3676 days ago) @ David Turell
Using Einstein's objections to vindicate Einstein:-http://phys.org/news/2014-04-philosopher-untangles-einstein-senility-controversy.html
Quantum weirdness; tunneling explained
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 15:37 (3651 days ago) @ David Turell
Electron jitter, never in the same spot at any time. Uncertainty, and the average of results:-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/tunneling-a-quantum-process/
Quantum weirdness; more about tunneling
by David Turell , Saturday, June 14, 2014, 18:44 (3604 days ago) @ David Turell
Quantum weirdness; time
by David Turell , Saturday, June 21, 2014, 02:12 (3598 days ago) @ David Turell
Time emerges from entanglement in this experiment. When looking from the inside change is seen and therefore time occurs. From the outside no change is seen, and therefore no time is present. An analagy to inside and outside the universe. The article explains. Shades of Ruth Kastner.-https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933?utm_source=newsletter70&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=70
Quantum weirdness; our reality
by David Turell , Friday, July 04, 2014, 06:29 (3585 days ago) @ David Turell
It may truly underlie our reality:-http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/quantum-state-may-be-a-real-thing/
Quantum weirdness; our reality
by David Turell , Friday, July 04, 2014, 15:25 (3585 days ago) @ David Turell
It may truly underlie our reality: > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/quantum-state-may-be-a-real-thing/-Some conclusions?:-"If you take the view that the wave function only produces a probability distribution and then take all the wave functions that produce the same probability distribution—in other words, the observer's possible choices of wave functions, based on his or her knowledge of the system—and try to reproduce measurement results, you'll fail. Consequently, there is a single wave function that must represent reality. "So which wave function represents reality? Many different wave functions could be right, because they produce the same probability distribution function, but we can't tell them apart. That's the consequence of this finding: one wave function represents reality, but our ability to tell which one is reduced. -"This paper is one of a series that is starting to reveal that our world is actually a quantum mechanical world at its very heart. Some aspects of it are non-local, some aspects of it are not real, and some aspects of it allow you to perform counterfactual operations."
Quantum weirdness; our reality
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 16, 2014, 16:12 (3572 days ago) @ David Turell
This is especially for dhw: yes we deal with quantum particles all the time in life and in science. This is working on quantum computing, still trying to deal with particle and wave, entanglement, etc.:- "In quantum teleportation2, qubits (specifying, for example, a photon's precise state) are transmitted between quantum-entangled locations via classical communication systems. "In this case, the essential resource is entanglement between the ancillary squeezed vacuum and nonclassical non-Gaussian states, which are created by a beam splitter with no losses," Furusawa notes. "Our successful teleportation of the squeezing operation to a single-photon state and Schrödinger's-cat" - that is, superposition - "state is the first example of deterministic quantum gate teleportation." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-particle-optical-qubit-technique-photons.html#jCp
Quantum weirdness; proton spin
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 01:58 (3567 days ago) @ David Turell
How the proton gets its spin is complicated, and not fully understood. Delving deeper into the basic quantum particles, which are not particles but smudgees in a field:-http://phys.org/news/2014-07-temperatures-cold-newly-discovered-fruit-flies.html
Quantum weirdness; proton spin
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 16:20 (3559 days ago) @ David Turell
Playing with neutrons. Only makes sense if one recalls Kastner:-http://phys.org/news/2014-07-quantum-cheshire-cat-neutrons.html
Quantum weirdness; particle paths
by David Turell , Thursday, July 31, 2014, 15:34 (3558 days ago) @ David Turell
This laboratory work is wonderful evidence of how we have to gently probe the quantum level of reality to reach some sort of result:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140730132431.htm-Averaging a zillion results.
Quantum weirdness; faster math
by David Turell , Saturday, September 06, 2014, 14:49 (3521 days ago) @ David Turell
Now it takes only 48 hours to do the calculations for waves in fields. Closer to quantum computing and messaging:-http://www.livescience.com/47684-calculating-quantum-wave-functions-faster.html?cmpid=558281
Quantum weirdness; electrons in helium
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 04:52 (3468 days ago) @ David Turell
No one knows what the electron is doing but its wave function seems to break into pieces?-http://phys.org/news/2014-10-function-electron.html
Quantum weirdness; Multiworld theory
by David Turell , Friday, October 31, 2014, 14:48 (3465 days ago) @ David Turell
More pie-in-the-sky nuttiness. Multiple worlds repelling each other. Kastner's one separate layer makes much more sense:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141030101654.htm-"The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics."
Quantum weirdness; Multiworld theory
DAVID: More pie-in-the-sky nuttiness. Multiple worlds repelling each other. Kastner's one separate layer makes much more sense:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141030101654.htm-"The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics."-I can't help agreeing with you, but the quantum world also appears to be nutty. Under “Enzymes use quantum tunnelling” you wrote: “The universe is based on quantum mechanics. Everything at that level is counterintuitive, and that is where God exists, not hiding but not fully accessable in my view."-Previously you have always said he was hiding there, but the fact of the matter is that nobody understands how life could have begun, nobody understands consciousness, nobody understands the quantum world, but you seem to think that by attributing it all to “God”, you solve all the mysteries! What is “God”? All you are saying is that something or the other caused life, consciousness, quantum weirdness, and you're going to call that something “God”. The word is meaningless. Only if you start to load it with attributes does it take on a meaning - and although you always claim that you won't do that, of course you do. You tell us that God is eternal, has always been self-aware, deliberately created the universe and life so that he could produce humans. Tony goes a lot further than you, basing a long list of attributes on his interpretation of ancient texts that you yourself have no faith in. However, both of you are adamant that all the mysteries of life can be solved by setting us an even greater mystery: what IS God? Where did it come from, how did it become conscious, where was it and what did it do before the Big Bang (if the BB ever took place)? “First cause” is no explanation, but an empty formula to get round the impossible questions. Life, consciousness and the quantum world are all counterintuitive, but since they all exist, there has to be an explanation for their existence. Until we find out what it is (and I doubt if we ever will), you and the atheists are stuck: they can't explain life, consciousness or the quantum world, and you can't explain God. As I have said elsewhere, it all comes down to faith.
Quantum weirdness; Multiworld theory
by David Turell , Saturday, November 01, 2014, 15:06 (3464 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I can't help agreeing with you, but the quantum world also appears to be nutty. Under “Enzymes use quantum tunnelling” you wrote: “The universe is based on quantum mechanics. Everything at that level is counterintuitive, and that is where God exists, not hiding but not fully accessable in my view." > > Previously you have always said he was hiding there, but the fact of the matter is that nobody understands how life could have begun, nobody understands consciousness, nobody understands the quantum world, but you seem to think that by attributing it all to “God”, you solve all the mysteries! What is “God”?..... Life, consciousness and the quantum world are all counterintuitive, but since they all exist, there has to be an explanation for their existence. Until we find out what it is (and I doubt if we ever will), you and the atheists are stuck: they can't explain life, consciousness or the quantum world, and you can't explain God. As I have said elsewhere, it all comes down to faith.-Yes it comes down to faith:-From GK today: "I think evolution seems to work just like the rock record and experiments shows it works. The only question left for me is the "knowingly dabbling" component of the discussion. I can't really answer that so the next thing I can do is come up with solutions that seem to match observations with the least amount of assumptions."-Why do I use his quote? One logical approach to 'least assumptions' is the faith in God as a concept solves everything easily. Feels good to me. And lots of famous philosophers accept First Cause. If you accept cause and effect as a valid concept, you are logically stuck!
Quantum weirdness; Multiworld theory
dhw: [...] Life, consciousness and the quantum world are all counterintuitive, but since they all exist, there has to be an explanation for their existence. Until we find out what it is (and I doubt if we ever will), you and the atheists are stuck: they can't explain life, consciousness or the quantum world, and you can't explain God. As I have said elsewhere, it all comes down to faith.-DAVID: Yes it comes down to faith: From GK today: "I think evolution seems to work just like the rock record and experiments shows it works. The only question left for me is the "knowingly dabbling" component of the discussion. I can't really answer that so the next thing I can do is come up with solutions that seem to match observations with the least amount of assumptions." Why do I use his quote? One logical approach to 'least assumptions' is the faith in God as a concept solves everything easily. -You have conveniently overlooked GK's comment that the “old guy in the sky [...] makes more assumptions than a star makes neutrinos.”-DAVID: Feels good to me. And lots of famous philosophers accept First Cause. If you accept cause and effect as a valid concept, you are logically stuck!-If your approach feels good to you, then of course you should stick with it, so long as you accept that it is a matter of faith, and other faiths or even lack of faith are just as reasonable and/or unreasonable as your own. I do accept First Cause, but not when it is used as an argument for the existence of God, because then you endow First Cause with an identity and specific attributes. We agreed before that First Cause may be energy.
Quantum weirdness; time in both directions?
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2015, 18:26 (3364 days ago) @ dhw
In delicate experimentation time seems to run in both directions in the quantum state, and the future seems to affect the past:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209083011.htm-"Even if you know everything quantum mechanics can tell you about a quantum particle, said Murch, an assistant professor of physics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a simple experiment to measure its state. All quantum mechanics can offer are statistical probabilities for the possible results.-"The orthodox view is that this indeterminacy is not a defect of the theory, but rather a fact of nature. The particle's state is not merely unknown, but truly undefined before it is measured. The act of measurement itself that forces the particle to collapse to a definite state.-"In the Feb. 13 issue of Physical Review Letters, Kater Murch describes a way to narrow the odds. By combining information about a quantum system's evolution after a target time with information about its evolution up to that time, his lab was able to narrow the odds of correctly guessing the state of the two-state system from 50-50 to 90-10.-"It's as if what we did today, changed what we did yesterday. And as this analogy suggests, the experimental results have spooky implications for time and causality -- at least in microscopic world to which quantum mechanics applies."-This is where Kastner's two levels of reality helps to understand it. The results can be a loop in quantum reality without regard to 'our' time. I think she showed us that the interconnection of the quantum state does not need time.
Quantum weirdness; time in both directions?
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Monday, February 09, 2015, 20:47 (3364 days ago) @ David Turell
This suggests to me that when we go back to the earliest moments of the universe, time as we understand it no longer exists. Instead we are in a sort of time vortex (for want of a better word). Some chance anomaly (symmetry breaking) sets it going off in a particular direction and we have a universe. This requires neither an infinite preceding time nor an infinitely dense singularity, both of which are unsatisfactory. The universe starts with a paradox. That appeals to me.
--
GPJ
Quantum weirdness; time in both directions?
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2015, 21:53 (3364 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: This suggests to me that when we go back to the earliest moments of the universe, > time as we understand it no longer exists. Instead we are in a sort of time vortex (for want of a better word). Some chance anomaly (symmetry breaking) sets it going off in a particular direction and we have a universe. This requires neither an infinite preceding time nor an infinitely dense singularity, both of which are unsatisfactory. The universe starts with a paradox. That appeals to me.-Good interpretation. It means to me that a quantum state has always existed. I use 'always' as you don't like 'eternal'.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 00:42 (3364 days ago) @ David Turell
By making certain theoretical 'quantum corrections' to general relativity theory the Big Bang disappears and the universe becomes eternal.-http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html-"Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.-"The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories. -"Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.-"In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again. -"Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations."
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
DAVID: By making certain theoretical 'quantum corrections' to general relativity theory the Big Bang disappears and the universe becomes eternal.-http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html-That should really set the cat among the pigeons. I never did like the BB theory anyway. And this proposal provides some scientific respectability for the hypothesis that energy and matter have been interacting for ever and ever, amen and hallelujah!
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 14:56 (3363 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: By making certain theoretical 'quantum corrections' to general relativity theory the Big Bang disappears and the universe becomes eternal. > > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html > > dhw: That should really set the cat among the pigeons. I never did like the BB theory anyway. And this proposal provides some scientific respectability for the hypothesis that energy and matter have been interacting for ever and ever, amen and hallelujah!-"Never liking" the BB sounds prejudicial and emotional. It implies a creation doesn't it. That is a strong blow to agnosticism and also to atheism. The paper above is a new suggestion. It awaits critical review, but it is always fun to throw new ideas into the hopper to stir thinking. And as we learned from Kastner there are all sorts of quantum theorists with very different ideas to solve quantum mechanics counter-intuitiveness.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
DAVID: By making certain theoretical 'quantum corrections' to general relativity theory the Big Bang disappears and the universe becomes eternal.-http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html-dhw: That should really set the cat among the pigeons. I never did like the BB theory anyway. And this proposal provides some scientific respectability for the hypothesis that energy and matter have been interacting for ever and ever, amen and hallelujah! DAVID: "Never liking" the BB sounds prejudicial and emotional. It implies a creation doesn't it. That is a strong blow to agnosticism and also to atheism. The paper above is a new suggestion. It awaits critical review, but it is always fun to throw new ideas into the hopper to stir thinking. And as we learned from Kastner there are all sorts of quantum theorists with very different ideas to solve quantum mechanics counter-intuitiveness.-Perhaps you should have asked me why I never liked the BB theory before jumping to such conclusions, though we have discussed it in the past. I do not see it as implying creation at all, and I don't know why atheists or agnostics should regard it as “a blow”. The idea of a universe springing from nothing seems to me - as it does to you - unlikely in the extreme. The idea of mindless energy and matter eternally interacting seems to me more likely. This might be in the form of an endless succession of universes, or a single universe endlessly changing itself. Or it might be your conscious energy constantly manufacturing universes or constantly monkeying around with just one. A single beginning seems to me the least likely of the three - but I'm not a scientist, which is why I'm pleased to hear of scientists who are also casting doubt on the BB.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Thursday, February 12, 2015, 01:03 (3362 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I do not see it [BB] as implying creation at all, and I don't know why atheists or agnostics should regard it as “a blow”. The idea of a universe springing from nothing seems to me - as it does to you - unlikely in the extreme. The idea of mindless energy and matter eternally interacting seems to me more likely.-Please look at my entry yesterday about the imbalance of mesons (2/11, 14:08) Energy made matter under strict meson guidance. I don't believe energy and matter interacted independently of all the 200 factors in fine tuning. Your idea implies chance blundering forward. -> dhw: This might be in the form of an endless succession of universes, or a single universe endlessly changing itself. Or it might be your conscious energy constantly manufacturing universes or constantly monkeying around with just one. A single beginning seems to me the least likely of the three - but I'm not a scientist, which is why I'm pleased to hear of scientists who are also casting doubt on the BB.-And then there is the new book by Lee Smolin, who states emphatically there is only one universe. There may well have been one universe after another, each one from a BB. Same old problem. With cause and effect at work, there has always been something and somehow life and consciousness has appeared. Not by chance.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
dhw: I do not see it [BB] as implying creation at all, and I don't know why atheists or agnostics should regard it as “a blow”. The idea of a universe springing from nothing seems to me - as it does to you - unlikely in the extreme. The idea of mindless energy and matter eternally interacting seems to me more likely.-DAVID: Please look at my entry yesterday about the imbalance of mesons (2/11, 14:08) Energy made matter under strict meson guidance. I don't believe energy and matter interacted independently of all the 200 factors in fine tuning. Your idea implies chance blundering forward.-I did read it, and noted that they still don't know why there is a “preponderance of matter in the universe today”. I also noted their talk of “incontrovertible evidence” for the Big Bang, which clearly runs against the theory we are dealing with here. As I keep saying, the concept of an eternal, ever-changing universe, or an eternity of universes, gives chance an infinite number of opportunities to “blunder” into one form of life or another. No, I don't believe it, but as with your God hypothesis, I don't disbelieve it either.-DAVID: And then there is the new book by Lee Smolin, who states emphatically there is only one universe. There may well have been one universe after another, each one from a BB. Same old problem. With cause and effect at work, there has always been something and somehow life and consciousness has appeared. Not by chance. Yep, same old problem. First cause energy with or without a mind? Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Thursday, February 12, 2015, 21:18 (3361 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Please look at my entry yesterday about the imbalance of mesons (2/11, 14:08) Energy made matter under strict meson guidance. I don't believe energy and matter interacted independently of all the 200 factors in fine tuning. Your idea implies chance blundering forward. > > dhw: I did read it, and noted that they still don't know why there is a “preponderance of matter in the universe today”. I also noted their talk of “incontrovertible evidence” for the Big Bang, which clearly runs against the theory we are dealing with here. As I keep saying, the concept of an eternal, ever-changing universe, or an eternity of universes, gives chance an infinite number of opportunities to “blunder” into one form of life or another. No, I don't believe it, but as with your God hypothesis, I don't disbelieve it either.-The pi-mason imbalance theory has been around and generally accepted for many years. I saw the comment you mention about "they still don't know why" and ignored it, as not being on the same page with most material published. I have a good sense of majority opinion, not that it is infallible, but currently accepted. You just see bits and pieces I put here, and you clamp on what really is just one aspect of current views. The same with sentient cells.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
DAVID: Please look at my entry yesterday about the imbalance of mesons (2/11, 14:08) Energy made matter under strict meson guidance. I don't believe energy and matter interacted independently of all the 200 factors in fine tuning. Your idea implies chance blundering forward.-dhw: I did read it, and noted that they still don't know why there is a “preponderance of matter in the universe today”. I also noted their talk of “incontrovertible evidence” for the Big Bang, which clearly runs against the theory we are dealing with here. As I keep saying, the concept of an eternal, ever-changing universe, or an eternity of universes, gives chance an infinite number of opportunities to “blunder” into one form of life or another. No, I don't believe it, but as with your God hypothesis, I don't disbelieve it either.-DAVID: The pi-mason imbalance theory has been around and generally accepted for many years. I saw the comment you mention about "they still don't know why" and ignored it, as not being on the same page with most material published. I have a good sense of majority opinion, not that it is infallible, but currently accepted. You just see bits and pieces I put here, and you clamp on what really is just one aspect of current views. The same with sentient cells.-There seem to be new theories coming out practically every day, and I'm surprised that you of all people should think you are obliged to follow opinions that are “currently accepted”. Do you think your opinion that God created the universe and started life so that it would lead to humans, which he did by preprogramming the first cells and/or dabbling, conforms to majority opinion and is currently accepted? Of course you don't. You question current opinions when they don't fit in with your own, and you accept them when they do. It's only natural. And what you call “one aspect of current view” is no different from one opinion as opposed to another. The bits and pieces you post here are a wonderful source of information, for which I am immensely grateful, but what they teach us time and again is that nobody knows the truth about origins, all the theories are speculation, and any conclusion will ultimately demand a leap of faith that is emphatically not based on reason or observation. I think this reply covers our posts under “Balance” and “Mind of God”, which have probably run their course.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2015, 17:59 (3360 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: There seem to be new theories coming out practically every day, and I'm surprised that you of all people should think you are obliged to follow opinions that are “currently accepted”.-Just as there are critical blogs about everything, the science industry is no different. The authors of the quantum piece got such fierce blowback they have changed their article to an 'hypothesis', not a theory. This is a far out idea, and I think you should remember I read lots of this stuff and have a wall bookcase filled with over two hundred books. The change by the authors doesn't surprise me at all. I have to form my opinions based on the judgment of authors and scientists whom appear well-reasoned to me. That is why I refer to Strassler so much. I follow his website closely. He works at the LHC on and off. So I am listening to a high level guy. I present this far out stuff to keep everyone informed about all mainstream and far out thinking. Throw it against the wall and see what sticks!-> dhw: Do you think your opinion that God created the universe and started life so that it would lead to humans, which he did by preprogramming the first cells and/or dabbling, conforms to majority opinion and is currently accepted? Of course you don't. -If you talk to a majority of Christians they will agree with me to varying degrees. See Lee Strobel, former atheist, his book a best-seller, now teaching apologetics here in Houston - > dhw:The bits and pieces you post here are a wonderful source of information, for which I am immensely grateful, but what they teach us time and again is that nobody knows the truth about origins, all the theories are speculation, and any conclusion will ultimately demand a leap of faith that is emphatically not based on reason or observation. > > I think this reply covers our posts under “Balance” and “Mind of God”, which have probably run their course.-Thank you, and I strongly feel faith can come from reasoned study. That is what I did. I agree to end of this area of discussion.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
dhw: There seem to be new theories coming out practically every day, and I'm surprised that you of all people should think you are obliged to follow opinions that are “currently accepted”. DAVID: Just as there are critical blogs about everything, the science industry is no different. The authors of the quantum piece got such fierce blowback they have changed their article to an 'hypothesis', not a theory. This is a far out idea, and I think you should remember I read lots of this stuff and have a wall bookcase filled with over two hundred books. The change by the authors doesn't surprise me at all. I have to form my opinions based on the judgment of authors and scientists whom appear well-reasoned to me. -I would hate to have to draw a borderline between theory and hypothesis when it comes to the apparently insoluble mystery of origins. Please don't misunderstand my comments on this subject. I have the utmost admiration for your scholarship (I still don't know how you manage to keep up with all these developments!), and for your reasoning as far as it goes, but when we come to the crunch, you are the first to admit that your conclusions rely on a massive leap of faith. Our next exchange illustrates precisely why what appears “well-reasoned” to you is an argument based on an existing premise: dhw: Do you think your opinion that God created the universe and started life so that it would lead to humans, which he did by preprogramming the first cells and/or dabbling, conforms to majority opinion and is currently accepted? Of course you don't. DAVID: If you talk to a majority of Christians they will agree with me to varying degrees.-Why do you regard “the majority of Christians” as representative of currently accepted, majority opinion? Most theists will agree with you “to varying degrees” that God is behind the creation of life and the universe. If you talk to a majority of atheists, they will agree to varying degrees with Dawkins. Under “Free Will”, we had the following exchange
AVID: A radio receiver illusion: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing...-dhw: What a stimulating post! He covers just about every point we've discussed ourselves, but I find it very reassuring when scientists in a particular field are prepared to challenge what elsewhere you have described as the “currently accepted” view. DAVID: Looking for this type of comment is like panning for gold.-So it doesn't represent the currently accepted majority opinion. But you and I welcome it - in your case, perhaps because we have here a specialist who appears to be on your side; in my case because he calls for open-mindedness. I'm afraid I remain highly suspicious of currently accepted views when they claim to solve the mystery of origins and of consciousness, and if scientists come up with a hypothesis that the BB never happened and the universe is eternal, I would expect a kerfuffle but I would not dismiss it just because it goes against current majority opinion.
Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang
by David Turell , Sunday, February 15, 2015, 15:15 (3358 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: for your reasoning as far as it goes, but when we come to the crunch, you are the first to admit that your conclusions rely on a massive leap of faith.-Just the opposite: I read and reason and when I reach a solid conclusion then I take the leap of faith. You seem to think it starts at faith. That is why I avoid the Bible. I accept a willingness to have faith after reasoning.- > DAVID: A radio receiver illusion: > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing... > dhw: What a stimulating post! He covers just about every point we've discussed ourselves, but I find it very reassuring when scientists in a particular field are prepared to challenge what elsewhere you have described as the “currently accepted” view. > DAVID: Looking for this type of comment is like panning for gold. > > dhw: So it doesn't represent the currently accepted majority opinion. But you and I welcome it - in your case, perhaps because we have here a specialist who appears to be on your side; in my case because he calls for open-mindedness. I'm afraid I remain highly suspicious of currently accepted views when they claim to solve the mystery of origins and of consciousness, and if scientists come up with a hypothesis that the BB never happened and the universe is eternal, I would expect a kerfuffle but I would not dismiss it just because it goes against current majority opinion.-When I started reading years ago as an agnostic, I had to educate myself, and certainly I had to accept majority opinion before I could begin to accept my own opinions. Logical. Now as an accomplished autodidact I have my education and my opinions and of course I like folks on 'my' side.
Quantum weirdness; Many Worlds refuted
by David Turell , Thursday, February 19, 2015, 14:51 (3354 days ago) @ David Turell
Thorough discussion of early theory, then many worlds picked apart:-http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/-"If the MWI were supported by some sound science, we would have to deal with it - and to do so with more seriousness than the merry invention of Doppelgängers to measure both quantum states of a photon. But it is not. It is grounded in a half-baked philosophical argument about a preference to simplify the axioms. Until Many Worlders can take seriously the philosophical implications of their vision, it's not clear why their colleagues, or the rest of us, should demur from the judgment of the philosopher of science Robert Crease that the MWI is ‘one of the most implausible and unrealistic ideas in the history of science'. Here, after all, is a theory that seems to allow everything conceivable to happen. To pretend that its only conceptual challenge is that it leads to scenarios like the plot of Sliding Doors (1998) shows a puzzling lacuna in the formidable minds of its advocates. Perhaps they should stop trying to tell us that philosophy is dead."
Quantum weirdness; Many Worlds refuted
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 04, 2019, 22:03 (1696 days ago) @ David Turell
A review of Sean Carroll's book "Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime":
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...
"...the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
"Six decades on, the theory is one of the most bizarre yet fully logical ideas in human history, growing directly out of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics without introducing extraneous elements.
***
"Quantum mechanics is the basic framework of modern subatomic physics. It has successfully withstood almost a century of tests, including French physicist Alain Aspect’s experiments confirming entanglement, or action at a distance between certain types of quantum phenomena. In quantum mechanics, the world unfolds through a combination of two basic ingredients. One is a smooth, fully deterministic wave function: a mathematical expression that conveys information about a particle in the form of numerous possibilities for its location and characteristics. The second is something that realizes one of those possibilities and eliminates all the others. Opinions differ about how that happens, but it might be caused by observation of the wave function or by the wave function encountering some part of the classical world.
"Many physicists accept this picture at face value in a conceptual kludge known as the Copenhagen interpretation, authored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. But the Copenhagen approach is difficult to swallow for several reasons. Among them is the fact that the wave function is unobservable, the predictions are probabilistic and what makes the function collapse is mysterious.
***
"The theory’s sheer simplicity and logic within the conceptual framework of quantum mechanics inspire Carroll to call it the “courageous” approach. Don’t worry about those extra worlds, he asserts — we can’t see them, and if the many-worlds theory is true, we won’t notice the difference. The many other worlds are parallel to our own, but so hidden from it that they “might as well be populated by ghosts”.
"For physicists, the theory is attractive because it explains many puzzles of quantum mechanics. With Erwin Schrödinger’s thought experiment concerning a dead-and-alive cat, for instance, the cats simply branch into different worlds, leaving just one cat-in-a-box per world. Carroll also shows that the theory offers simpler explanations of certain complex phenomena, such as why black holes emit radiation.
***
"Nevertheless, non-scientists might have lingering problems with Carroll’s breezy, largely unexamined ideas about “reality”. Like many physicists, he assumes that reality is whatever a scientific theory says it is. But what gives physicists a lock on this concept, and the right to say that the rest of us (not to mention, say, those in extreme situations such as refugees, soldiers and people who are terminally ill) are living through a less fundamental reality? (my bold)
***
"What a wacky idea."
Comment: totally untestable, like debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Quantum weirdness; essay says not so weird
by David Turell , Monday, February 23, 2015, 18:42 (3350 days ago) @ dhw
With enough system correlations it all works just fine:-http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/is-your-theory-of-everything-pure-enough-"And just like that, we have come to an idea at the heart of quantum mechanics, called the Purification Principle. It states that if one takes into consideration a sufficient number of systems, it is always possible to find a level of description where all systems are in a pure state. The Purification Principle is a sieve that separates physical theories that can aspire to fundamental status, from those that are merely effective. After all, fundamental theories of nature should describe phenomena in a self-contained way, making predictions that cannot be altered by the presence of information hiding elsewhere.-"What about quantum mechanics? It turns out that not only is it a fundamental theory, but it is the only standard theory that can satisfy Purification while allowing for the idea of probabilities in nature. This is the central result of a 2011 paper by Mauro D'Ariano, Paolo Perinotti, and myself, and it brings us to a fork: Either the outcome of every event is predetermined, or quantum theory must be the correct description of the natural world.1 In other words, only in a quantum world can the notion of randomness—and hence information—play a role in the fundamental laws of physics. For if every event was predetermined, the outcomes of all experiments should be independent of the information possessed by any agent.-"Physicists can take heart from quantum information theory. When quantum mechanics was first formulated, it seemed that physics had lost something. To classical physicists, it was as though the beautiful clockwork universe of Galileo and Newton had been shrouded with a cloud of indeterminacy. But quantum information has been the joyful discovery that quantum mechanics is not only a theory of limits, but also a theory of new opportunities, such as secure quantum cryptography and super-fast quantum computers. From this angle, quantum theory does not look any longer like “physics with something less,” but instead like “information theory with something more.” That “something more” is provided—we believe—by the Purification Principle, which lets us harness randomness in ways that were undreamt of in the classical world of Galileo and Newton."
Quantum weirdness; another weird theory
by David Turell , Saturday, February 28, 2015, 21:04 (3345 days ago) @ David Turell
Again an attempt to understand wave particle duality by accepting it as fact:-"'When one imagines a hidden variable theory that describes the experiments we consider, it has only so much freedom (seven parameters, to be exact). Putting constraints that are mathematical expressions of our three intuitive requirements reduces the freedom until nothing is left."-"Because any two of the three ideas are mutually compatible, the physicists suggest that it seems most natural to drop the objectivity assumption, while keeping determinism and independence. This choice requires that wave-particle duality be accepted, regardless of its counterintuitive nature. However, knowing for sure will be a subject of future research."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html#jCp
Quantum weirdness; particle and wave pictured
by David Turell , Monday, March 02, 2015, 15:13 (3343 days ago) @ David Turell
A clever trick with electrons and wave/particle property of light in a picture!-"This is where the experiment's trick comes in: The scientists shot a stream of electrons close to the nanowire, using them to image the standing wave of light. As the electrons interacted with the confined light on the nanowire, they either sped up or slowed down. Using the ultrafast microscope to image the position where this change in speed occurred, Carbone's team could now visualize the standing wave, which acts as a fingerprint of the wave-nature of light." - Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html#jCp
Quantum weirdness; explanatory essay on particle/wave
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 23:54 (3328 days ago) @ David Turell
Explaining the recent finding of particle wave caught together:-http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2015/03/17/debunking_medias_particle_physics_hype_109136.html-"To be precise, it's not strictly a light wave as the headlines suggest. It's actually a hybrid of a light wave, dancing on the wire, and an electromagnetic wave slithering on the wire's surface, produced by charged particles moving along the wire. They're kind of joined at the hip. This composite object is known as a surface plasmon polariton and you can read more about it on Wikipedia. -"For simplicity, let's consider it just to be a light wave. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if the wave is made of photons or some hybrid object. It acts like a wave.-"But when the researchers fired electrons at the nanowire, the electrons sometimes sped up by specific amounts, indicating that they absorbed individual photons from the wire. How can light behave like both waves and particles at the same time?-"The answer is that the light was made of many different photons. Each of them behaved in a separate way. The researchers observed some photons acting like particles, and others acting like waves. Imaging both types simultaneously is what was done for the first time in their experiment. - "Carbone mentioned a 2011 Science paper that he said came the closest thus far to capturing a single photon's dual nature. Researchers led by Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto measured a particle-like property of individual photons — their average position - without destroying the wavelike interference patterns they later created. Physics World named this experiment the 2011 Breakthrough of the Year, and it was well deserved. However, even this experiment couldn't determine the exact positions of individual photons as they went on to create a wave-like pattern of light and dark bands on a detector.-"What is the fundamental reason for this limitation? It's something from quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Named for 20th century physicist Werner Heisenberg, it says that you can't measure two complementary variables, such as position and momentum, with complete precision. If you measure one precisely, it sacrifices the precision with which you can measure the other. -"So if you measure particle-like properties of the photon, it can sacrifice its wave-like properties. Zero in on a photon's position too precisely, and it cannot participate later on in creating a wave pattern.-"It is possible to measure some weakly wave-like and weakly particle-like properties in a photon simultaneously, Carbone said, as long as the combined uncertainties in the measurements do not violate the uncertainty principle."
Quantum weirdness; new experiments
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 20, 2015, 19:52 (3264 days ago) @ David Turell
A review of current efforts to pierce the fog:-http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150521-The entire article is very interesting, but no answers as yet:-"It is this sentiment that has led Maroney and others to develop a new series of experiments to uncover the nature of the wavefunction — the mysterious entity that lies at the heart of quantum weirdness. On paper, the wavefunction is simply a mathematical object that physicists denote with the Greek letter psi (?) — one of Maroney's funny squiggles — and use to describe a particle's quantum behaviour. Depending on the experiment, the wavefunction allows them to calculate the probability of observing an electron at any particular location, or the chances that its spin is oriented up or down. But the mathematics shed no light on what a wavefunction truly is. Is it a physical thing? Or just a calculating tool for handling an observer's ignorance about the world?-"The tests being used to work that out are extremely subtle, and have yet to produce a definitive answer. But researchers are optimistic that a resolution is close. If so, they will finally be able to answer questions that have lingered for decades. Can a particle really be in many places at the same time? Is the Universe continually dividing itself into parallel worlds, each with an alternative version of ourselves? Is there such a thing as an objective reality at all?-***-"But this is where the debate gets stuck. Which of quantum theory's many interpretations — if any — is correct? That is a tough question to answer experimentally, because the differences between the models are subtle: to be viable, they have to predict essentially the same quantum phenomena as the very successful Copenhagen interpretation. Andrew White, a physicist at the University of Queensland, says that for most of his 20-year career in quantum technologies “the problem was like a giant smooth mountain with no footholds, no way to attack it”.-"That changed in 2011, with the publication of a theorem about quantum measurements that seemed to rule out the wavefunction-as-ignorance models2. On closer inspection, however, the theorem turned out to leave enough wiggle room for them to survive. Nonetheless, it inspired physicists to think seriously about ways to settle the debate by actually testing the reality of the wavefunction. Maroney had already devised an experiment that should work in principle3, and he and others soon found ways to make it work in practice.-***-"Because Wiseman's model does not need a wavefunction, it will remain viable even if future experiments rule out the ignorance models. Also surviving would be models, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, that maintain there is no objective reality — just measurements.-"But then, says White, that is the ultimate challenge. Although no one knows how to do it yet, he says, “what would be really exciting is to devise a test for whether there is in fact any objective reality out there at all.'”
Quantum weirdness; new experiments
by David Turell , Saturday, May 30, 2015, 20:53 (3254 days ago) @ David Turell
Wheeler's thought experiment about delayed choice is now proven!-http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html-"Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.-"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.-***** :A second light grating to recombine the paths was randomly added, which led to constructive or destructive interference as if the atom had travelled both paths. When the second light grating was not added, no interference was observed as if the atom chose only one path.-"However, the random number determining whether the grating was added was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads.-If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.-"'The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said."
Quantum weirdness; new particle?
by David Turell , Friday, October 03, 2014, 19:42 (3493 days ago) @ David Turell
Both matter and antimatter at the same time, sort of proven:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/majorana-particle-matter-and-antimatter/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20141003-Will we see new physics from this? Another strange layer of particles
Quantum weirdness; good discussion
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 05:55 (3482 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 06:03
An excellent discussion of the weirdness. And a good description of delayed choice experiments and how counterintuitive they are.:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929282.100-quantum-weirdness-the-battle-for-the-basis-of-reality.html?full=true- Ruth Ksstner in on to something.
Quantum weirdness: parallel worlds
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 22:25 (3446 days ago) @ David Turell
Is someone smoking dope? Just because the math works, doesn't mean it is true. It can't be studied, so it cannot be falsified:-http://www.livescience.com/48806-parallel-worlds-quantum-mechanics-theory.html?cmpid=558618-"Hugh Everett was the first physicist to propose the possibility of a multiverse — an infinite number of parallel universes that exist alongside our own. He published his "Many Worlds" theory in the 1950s, but the idea was not well-received in the academic world.-"Everett ended his career in physics shortly after getting his Ph.D., but many physicists now take the multiverse and parallel-worlds idea seriously. Poirier reworked the Many Worlds theory into the less abstract "Many Interacting Worlds" (MIW) theory, which could help explain the weird world of quantum mechanics.-"Quantum mechanics has existed for more than a century, but its interpretation is just as controversial today as it was 100 years ago, Poirier wrote in his original paper.-"Albert Einstein was not a fan of quantum mechanics. The idea that a particle could exist in a haze of probability instead of a definite location did not make sense to him, and he once famously said, "God does not play dice with the universe." However, this new MIW theory might have helped to put Einstein's mind at ease. In the MIW theory, quantum particles don't act like waves at all. Each parallel world has normal-behaving particles and physical objects. The wave-function equation doesn't have to exist at all.-"In the new study, which builds on Poirier's idea, physicists from Griffith University in Australia and the University of California, Davis, demonstrate that it only takes two interacting parallel worlds — not an infinite number — to produce the weird quantum behavior that physicists have observed. Neighboring worlds repulse one another, the researchers wrote in the paper. This force of repulsion could explain bizarre quantum effects, such as particles that can tunnel through barriers.-"But how can physicists prove we're living in just one of millions of other worlds, or that these worlds interact? Poirier thinks it will take some time to develop a way to test the idea.-"Experimental observations are the ultimate test of any theory," Poirier said in a statement. "So far, Many Interacting Worlds makes the same predictions as standard quantum theory, so all we can say for sure at present is that it might be correct."-"The authors of the new paper hope that expanding the MIW theory will lead to ways to test for parallel worlds and further explain quantum mechanics.-"Richard Feynman, a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics," but Poirier and his colleagues argue that physicists have much to gain from trying."-Ruth Kastner makes more sense.
Quantum weirdness: parallel worlds
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 03, 2015, 15:44 (3250 days ago) @ David Turell
More on parallel worlds:-"'People have argued for a long time about what the wave function means philosophically and how it should be interpreted," he said. "Now we suddenly realized that this may be entirely the wrong way to frame the argument. The more fundamental question should be, 'Does the wave function even exist, and if not, what takes its place?' At present, we cannot say definitively that the wave function does not exist. Only that its existence is not necessary, because we've found another mathematical method that provides all the same information. So, what does this new mathematics have to say about what takes the place of the wave function? What emerges from the math are parallel universes.'"- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-strange-behavior-quantum-particles-parallel.html#jCp-This brings us back to Ruth Kastner's comments posted a couple years ago in our past. It could be just one invisible layer of our reality, not many.
Quantum weirdness: the basis of life
by David Turell , Saturday, August 01, 2015, 20:25 (3191 days ago) @ David Turell
A new book, Life on the Edge, describes how quantum entanglement runs most life processes and might create consciousness:-http://www.wsj.com/articles/physics-for-bird-brains-1438375279-"There is a sense in which all of biology is quantum biology. The entangled strands of DNA, the famous double helix of the molecule of life, are held together by a quantum phenomenon known as hydrogen bonding. The way in which those strands untwist and build new double helixes during the process of reproduction is at heart a quantum phenomenon, closely related to the way in which quantum entities such as electrons can be both wave and particle at the same time.-"In their remarkable book, “Life on the Edge,” Johnjoe McFadden, an expert in molecular genetics, and Jim Al-Khalili, a quantum physicist, join forces to explain many everyday aspects of life in terms of what is often referred to as quantum weirdness. After teasing the reader with an introduction presenting the puzzle of how birds can detect the Earth's magnetic field and use it for navigation, the authors lead us gently by the hand through discussions of the nature of life itself, right down to the molecular level and the mysteries of quantum physics. This is material that has been covered in many books but nowhere more succinctly and clearly than here. The authors have an easily accessible style, free from jargon, that can make complex issues clear even to the non-scientist.-"The key step in the process [photosynthesis] involves electrons “hopping” from one molecule to another. Some extraordinary experiments described in this book have revealed that this energy is flowing through the plant by, in effect, following several routes simultaneously, thanks to a phenomenon known as coherence. This is a purely quantum effect.-"This discovery is particularly exciting because quantum coherence is a concept that many of the physicists working on the development of “quantum computers” have incorporated into their designs. Not for the first time, nature got there before the scientists and so far does a better job of “computing” the most efficient way to get energy from A to B. Not that the quantum computer scientists were quick to embrace this idea: Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili quote one of them describing his colleagues' immediate reaction when they saw a New York Times article suggesting that plants might operate as quantum computers: “It's like, ‘Oh my God, that's the most crackpot thing I've heard in my life.' ” But they have since changed their tune. -"All this is dramatic enough and well worth the price of admission. But the authors have saved the best—if admittedly the most speculative—idea for (nearly) last: that quantum procedures help explain consciousness and the mechanics of thought, as surely as they do photosynthesis."
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 02, 2015, 04:41 (3160 days ago) @ David Turell
Quantum weirdness passes an important test:-http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet-1.18255-"The most rigorous test of quantum theory ever carried out has confirmed that the ‘spooky action at a distance' that the German physicist famously hated — in which manipulating one object instantaneously seems to affect another, far away one — is an inherent part of the quantum world.-"The experiment, performed in the Netherlands, could be the final nail in the coffin for models of the atomic world that are more intuitive than standard quantum mechanics, say some physicists.-*** "In the 1960s, Irish physicist John Bell proposed a test that could discriminate between Einstein's hidden variables and the spooky interpretation of quantum mechanics1. He calculated that hidden variables can explain correlations only up to some maximum limit. If that level is exceeded, then Einstein's model must be wrong.-"The first Bell test was carried out in 19812, by Alain Aspect's team at the Institute of Optics in Palaiseau, France. Many more have been performed since, always coming down on the side of spookiness — but each of those experiments has had loopholes that meant that physicists have never been able to fully close the door on Einstein's view. Experiments that use entangled photons are prone to the ‘detection loophole': not all photons produced in the experiment are detected, and sometimes as many as 80% are lost. Experimenters therefore have to assume that the properties of the photons they capture are representative of the entire set.-"To get around the detection loophole, physicists often use particles that are easier to keep track of than photons, such as atoms. But it is tough to separate distant atoms apart without destroying their entanglement. This opens the ‘communication loophole': if the entangled atoms are too close together, then, in principle, measurements made on one could affect the other without violating the speed-of-light limit.-***-"In the latest paper3, which was submitted to the arXiv preprint repository on 24 August and has not yet been peer reviewed, a team led by Ronald Hanson of Delft University of Technology reports the first Bell experiment that closes both the detection and the communication loopholes. The team used a cunning technique called entanglement swapping to combine the benefits of using both light and matter. The researchers started with two unentangled electrons sitting in diamond crystals held in different labs on the Delft campus, 1.3 kilometres apart. Each electron was individually entangled with a photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a third location. There, the two photons were entangled with each other — and this caused both their partner electrons to become entangled, too.-"This did not work every time. In total, the team managed to generate 245 entangled pairs of electrons over the course of nine days. The team's measurements exceeded Bell's bound, once again supporting the standard quantum view. Moreover, the experiment closed both loopholes at once: because the electrons were easy to monitor, the detection loophole was not an issue, and they were separated far enough apart to close the communication loophole, too.-“'It is a truly ingenious and beautiful experiment,” says Anton Zeilinger, a physicist at the Vienna Centre for Quantum Science and Technology."-Comment: this is explained only if one invokes a separate plane of quantum reality parallel to ours, per Kastner.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by David Turell , Saturday, October 24, 2015, 15:08 (3108 days ago) @ David Turell
Another article on the Delft experiment which finally closes the door on 'hidden variables' that might confuse the issue of entanglement theory. This is the best test of entanglement yet. 'Spooky action at a distance' is real.-http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21676733-one-weirdest-bits-physics-proved-beyond-doubt-almost-hidden-no-more-"Plenty of experiments have closed one or the other of these loopholes, for example by detecting particles that are more reliably caught than photons, or by sending photons so far apart that no slower-than-light signal could flit between them in time to have an effect. By now, most physicists reckon the hidden-variable idea is flawed. But no test had closed both loopholes simultaneously—until this week, that is.-***-"Ronald Hanson of the University of Delft and his colleagues, writing in Nature, describe an experiment that starts with two electrons in laboratories separated by more than a kilometre. Each emits a photon that travels down a fibre to a third lab, where the two photons are entangled. That, in turn, entangles the electrons that generated the photons. The consequence is easily measured particles (the electrons) separated by a distance that precludes any shifty hidden-variable signalling.-"Over 18 days, the team measured how correlated the electron measurements were. Perhaps expectedly, yet also oddly, they were far more so than chance would allow—proving quantum mechanics is as spooky as Einstein had feared.-***-"There remains, alas, one hitch that could explain all these counterintuitive findings. Just maybe, every single event that will ever be, from experimenters' choices of the means of measurement to the choice of article you will read next, were all predetermined at the universe's birth, and all these experiments are playing out just as predetermined. That, however, is one for the metaphysicists. " ( my bold, just to bug dhw!)
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
DAVID: "There remains, alas, one hitch that could explain all these counterintuitive findings. Just maybe, every single event that will ever be, from experimenters' choices of the means of measurement to the choice of article you will read next, were all predetermined at the universe's birth, and all these experiments are playing out just as predetermined. That, however, is one for the metaphysicists. " ( my bold, just to bug dhw!)-Lovely! But perhaps more for Romansh than for me, since he's a stickler for tracing all things back along the chain of cause and effect.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2015, 13:12 (3107 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: "There remains, alas, one hitch that could explain all these counterintuitive findings. Just maybe, every single event that will ever be, from experimenters' choices of the means of measurement to the choice of article you will read next, were all predetermined at the universe's birth, and all these experiments are playing out just as predetermined. That, however, is one for the metaphysicists. > " ( my bold, just to bug dhw!) > > dhw: Lovely! But perhaps more for Romansh than for me, since he's a stickler for tracing all things back along the chain of cause and effect.-I view Romansh as a lost soul. I'm sorry he's hiding, lurking?
Quantum weirdness: superposition
by David Turell , Saturday, November 07, 2015, 23:41 (3093 days ago) @ David Turell
Superposition becomes more complex. Schroeder's cat would have a problem with it:-http://phys.org/news/2015-11-quantum-superposition-events.html In a quantum superposition, a quantum object can be in two incompatible states at the same time, which is famously illustrated by Schrödinger's dead-and-alive cat. Recent research has shown that it's possible to have a superposition not only of incompatible states, but also of incompatible orders of events. We often think of events occurring in a definite chronological order, with event A happening (and causing) event B, or vice versa. But in certain quantum processes, events don't happen in a single definite order, but instead both orders (A before B, and B before A) occur at the same time. This counterintuitive superposition-like phenomenon is called "causal nonseparability." -In everyday life, we are used to experiencing one thing always happening after another, effects following their causes," Mateus Araújo at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, Austria, told Phys.org. "So it is a bit unsettling to realize that deep down Nature doesn't work like this, that things can happen without a definite causal order, where we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect."-***-Quantum theory, on the other hand, has shaken our understanding of reality by telling us that physical systems may not have well-defined properties, and may be in a 'superposition' of incompatible states. For example, a poor cat could be both alive and dead at the same time. Now we find that not just physical properties, but also causal relations (or causal orders) themselves can be undefined, and can be put in some kind of superposition—a phenomenon that had not been observed experimentally until very recently."-***-As the researchers explain, just because the quantum switch is causally nonseparable (meaning the operations do not follow a definite order), this does not mean that it violates any causal inequality (which would happen if a future event were to cause a past event). This is because there is no definite past or future in the quantum switch; neither event definitely comes before or after the other. Although the quantum switch does not violate any causal inequality, the question remains open as to whether any practical, physical process that can be experimentally realized may do so.-Comment: Here again, everything is solved if quantum reality is a parallel region as Kastner described. All the nuttiness happens over there in quantum fashion and then comes over here to confuse everyone. Still makes perfect sense to me.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 16:08 (3089 days ago) @ David Turell
Another study with maximal entanglement:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151109084314.htm-"Experiments since the 1970s have been collecting evidence that quantum predictions are correct. Recently an experiment in the Netherlands became the first to do away with all assumptions in the data-gathering.-"Technically known as a 'loophole-free Bell test', the experiment leaves no wiggle room in meaning: entangled particles do behave randomly, and they synchronize without exchanging signals. (The results appeared in Nature on 21 October 2015, doi:10.1038/nature15759).-"In the lab in Singapore, Poh and his colleagues also performed a Bell test. But instead of closing loopholes, their setup pushes the entanglement towards its theoretical maximum.-"They make entangled photons by shining a laser through a crystal. The photons interact with the crystal in such a way that occasionally, one splits into two and the pair emerges entangled. The team control the photons with an array of lenses, mirrors and other optical elements to optimize the effect.-"The researchers looked at 33.2 million optimized photon pairs. Each pair was split up and the photons measured separately, then the correlation between the results quantified.-"In such a Bell test, the strength of the correlation says whether or not the photons were entangled. The measures involved are complex, but can be reduced to a simple number. Any value bigger than 2 is evidence for quantum effects at work. But there is also an upper limit.-"Quantum physics predicts the correlation measure cannot get any bigger than 2sqrt(2) ~2.82843. In the experiment at CQT, they measure 2.82759 ± 0.00051 -- within 0.03% of the limit. If the peak value were the top of Everest, this would be only 2.6 metres below the summit."-Comment: 'Bell Tests' remove many possible theoretical errors. This one removed them all. 'Spookiness at a distance' exists. All of reality is connected.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by BBella , Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 21:00 (3089 days ago) @ David Turell
Another study with maximal entanglement: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151109084314.htm > -> Comment: 'Bell Tests' remove many possible theoretical errors. This one removed them all. 'Spookiness at a distance' exists. All of reality is connected.-This connectivity at work is where intelligence resides.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 21:16 (3089 days ago) @ BBella
Bbella: This connectivity at work is where intelligence resides.-You are probably correct. To me God is a quantum network.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement and space-time
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 18, 2015, 20:18 (3082 days ago) @ David Turell
It may be that with lots of further work will show that space-time is explained by entanglement. A complex review article:-http://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20151119&spMailingID=50048505&spUserID=MjA1NjE2NDU5MwS2&spJobID=802503317&spReportId=ODAyNTAzMzE3S0-"A successful unification of quantum mechanics and gravity has eluded physicists for nearly a century. Quantum mechanics governs the world of the small — the weird realm in which an atom or particle can be in many places at the same time, and can simultaneously spin both clockwise and anticlockwise. Gravity governs the Universe at large — from the fall of an apple to the motion of planets, stars and galaxies — and is described by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, announced 100 years ago this month. The theory holds that gravity is geometry: particles are deflected when they pass near a massive object not because they feel a force, said Einstein, but because space and time around the object are curved.-"Both theories have been abundantly verified through experiment, yet the realities they describe seem utterly incompatible. And from the editors' standpoint, Van Raamsdonk's approach to resolving this incompatibility was? strange. All that's needed, he asserted, is ‘entanglement': the phenomenon that many physicists believe to be the ultimate in quantum weirdness. Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way.-"Einstein loathed the idea of entanglement, and famously derided it as “spooky action at a distance”. But it is central to quantum theory. And Van Raamsdonk, drawing on work by like-minded physicists going back more than a decade, argued for the ultimate irony — that, despite Einstein's objections, entanglement might be the basis of geometry, and thus of Einstein's geometric theory of gravity. “Space-time,” he says, “is just a geometrical picture of how stuff in the quantum system is entangled.”-"This idea is a long way from being proved, and is hardly a complete theory of quantum gravity. But independent studies have reached much the same conclusion, drawing intense interest from major theorists. A small industry of physicists is now working to expand the geometry-entanglement relationship, using all the modern tools developed for quantum computing and quantum information theory.-***-"Despite the remaining challenges, there is a sense among the practitioners of this field that they have begun to glimpse something real and very important. “I didn't know what space was made of before,” says Swingle. “It wasn't clear that question even had meaning.” But now, he says, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the question does make sense. “And the answer is something that we understand,” says Swingle. “It's made of entanglement.'”-Comment: I've presented some of the simple general explanations of this possible breakthrough. The meat is in the center of the article and involves the structure of space and it does not involve strings. Fascinating. The basis of our reality is quantum mechanics.
Quantum weirdness: particles or waves
by David Turell , Saturday, November 21, 2015, 15:32 (3079 days ago) @ David Turell
An excellent review article. The universe is entangled, patterns may apply, and information may be at the root of reality. Read carefully to savor the complexity:-http://nautil.us/issue/30/identity/quantum-mechanics-is-putting-human-identity-on-trial-"An electron—any electron—is an elementary particle, which is to say it has no known substructure. ..molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of elementary particles, but elementary particles are the end of the line. They are made of nothing, being, as they are, the most basic building blocks of the material world. An electron is a point, taking up quite literally no space at all. Every electron is defined solely in terms of its mass (tiny), its spin (1/2) and its charge (negative). Those three features comprise in toto the complete and comprehensive identity of the electron, as its want for spatial extent bears no room to house any further attributes.-***-"Some, like Wilczek, say one field. It is no mystery that all electrons look alike, he says, because they are all manifestations, temporary excitations of one and the same underlying electron field, which permeates all space, all time. Others, like physicist John Archibald Wheeler, say one particle. He suggested that perhaps electrons are indistinguishable because there's only one, but it traces such convoluted paths through space and time that at any given moment it appears to be many. Gottfried Leibniz, the 17th-century philosopher, put forth the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, which said if you can't tell two things apart, they are not two things. On one hand, electrons appear to refute the principle. On the other, perhaps the multiplicity of particles—or the multiplicity of the world—is a kind of funhouse illusion.-***-"When you have more and more electrons, the state that they together form starts to be more and more capable of being distinct,” Pesic said. “So the reason that you and I have some kind of identity is that we're composed of so enormously many of these indistinguishable components. It's our state that's distinguishable, not our materiality.”- "Pesic continues. “Not one of our components—no electron, no proton—has any kind of stamp on it. But together they exist in a state that becomes sufficiently complex that it can then be distinguished from the state of every other person who's composed of the same indistinguishable electrons and protons.”-"“My thingness is in how I'm organized, not what I'm made of,” says Ladyman. “But of course we know that anyway, because we know that the cells in our bodies are getting replaced all the time. Functional organization of structure, not the matter it's made of, is what counts.”-***-"Our identity is a state, but if it's not a state of matter—not a state of individual physical objects, like quarks and electrons—then a state of what?-A state, perhaps, of information. Ladyman suggests that we can replace the notion of a “thing” with a “real pattern”—a concept first articulated by the philosopher Daniel Dennett and further developed by Ladyman and philosopher Don Ross. “Another way of articulating what you mean by an object is to talk about compression of information,” Ladyman says. “So you can claim that something's real if there's a reduction in the information-theoretic complexity of tracking the world if you include it in your description.”-***-"Should such examples give the impression that the real patterns are patterns of particles, beware: Particles, like our electron, are real patterns themselves. “We're using a particle-like description to keep track of the real patterns,” Ladyman says. “It's real patterns all the way down.”-"We are nothing but fleeting patterns, signals in the noise. Drill down and the appearance of materiality gives way; underneath it, nothing. “I think in the end,” says Ladyman, “it may well be that the world isn't made of anything.”-"Even so, we can point to patterns, and assign names. The more complex the pattern, the more we have to potentially gain by compressing its microscopic description, and the greater the case for identity. Consider a brain—with as many neurons as stars in the galaxy linked together through trillions of connections it's the most complex object in the known universe. Try to compress it. Call it by just two words. Call it Martin Guerre. Push further. A single word, a single letter.-Call it “I.”-Comment: Functional patterns run by information
Quantum weirdness: particles or waves
DAVID: An excellent review article. The universe is entangled, patterns may apply, and information may be at the root of reality. Read carefully to savor the complexity:-http://nautil.us/issue/30/identity/quantum-mechanics-is-putting-human-identity-on-trial-I have read the whole article through twice, and am more confused than ever. This is probably because I lack your scientific background, David, but maybe you can enlighten me. If I put the bits and pieces together, the author seems to be focusing partly on the question of whether there really is such a thing as matter. The more you reduce matter to its component parts, the closer you get to nothing: “...elementary particles are the end of the line. They are made of nothing, being, as they are, the most basic building blocks of the material world.” “I think in the end,” says Ladyman, “it may well be that the world isn't made of anything.” This makes the “multiplicity of the world” into a “kind of funhouse illusion”. I don't find this fun at all: how can nothing be the building blocks of materials? I am more inclined to trust the dictates of common sense than of physics, but let us continue...-The article also tells us that although our ultimate component parts are indistinguishable, “the state that they together form starts to be more and more capable of being distinct” - and this is what gives us our identity. “It's our state that's distinguishable, not our materiality.” (Pesic) Presumably this is a reference to our PHYSICAL identity, which is the result of physical components combining into their own particular individual pattern. This is later confirmed: "“My thingness is in how I'm organized, not what I'm made of,” says Ladyman. “But of course we know that anyway, because we know that the cells in our bodies are getting replaced all the time. Functional organization of structure, not the matter it's made of, is what counts.” That's fine with me, but it is organization of matter, not of nothing. However, this seems to be contradicted by another statement: “Our identity is a state, but if it's not a state of matter—not a state of individual physical objects, like quarks and electrons—then a state of what?” I thought functional organization of structure WAS the “state” that the parts form together, so is the structure made of matter or not? Are they talking about physical identity or about character, or do they see the two as inseparable? These are genuine questions. I simply don't understand how it all links up.-The answer to a “state of what” is apparently our old friend “information”, which is thrown in without any definition of what it actually means. But “another way of articulating what you mean by an object is to talk about compression of information.” What is compressed information, and how does it tie in with the elementary particles of nothing which are supposed to be the building blocks of an object? Once again, is an object material or not? It turns out, though, that “information” is not quite the answer to the question of what our identity is a state of: When we get to the grand climax of the article, we are asked to “Consider a brain—with as many neurons as stars in the galaxy linked together through trillions of connections it's the most complex object in the known universe. Try to compress it. Call it by just two words. Call it Martin Guerre. Push further. A single word, a single letter. Call it “I.” It's a wonderfully dramatic conclusion to a beautifully written piece, but bearing in mind the statement that elementary particles (not information) which are made of nothing are the basic building blocks of the material world, perhaps you can explain to me whether (a) the author is telling us that matter is real or not, and (b) how the material brain with its billions of material neurons constitutes the “I” (identity) when it is “compressed” to...exactly what? -Along the way, there are intriguing hints at BBella's concept of the oneness of everything, and perhaps the lines of thought might fit in with your own concept of an immaterial identity. My apologies if my confusion is not shared by anyone else.
Quantum weirdness: particles or waves
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 20:58 (3076 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I have read the whole article through twice, and am more confused than ever. This is probably because I lack your scientific background, David, but maybe you can enlighten me. If I put the bits and pieces together, the author seems to be focusing partly on the question of whether there really is such a thing as matter.-Of course here is matter, but quantum mechanics defies logic, as you have discovered.--> The article also tells us that although our ultimate component parts are indistinguishable, “the state that they together form starts to be more and more capable of being distinct” - and this is what gives us our identity. “It's our state that's distinguishable, not our materiality.” (Pesic) Presumably this is a reference to our PHYSICAL identity, which is the result of physical components combining into their own particular individual pattern. This is later confirmed: "“My thingness is in how I'm organized, not what I'm made of,” says Ladyman. “But of course we know that anyway, because we know that the cells in our bodies are getting replaced all the time. Functional organization of structure, not the matter it's made of, is what counts.” That's fine with me, but it is organization of matter, not of nothing. However, this seems to be contradicted by another statement: “Our identity is a state, but if it's not a state of matter—not a state of individual physical objects, like quarks and electrons—then a state of what?” I thought functional organization of structure WAS the “state” that the parts form together, so is the structure made of matter or not? Are they talking about physical identity or about character, or do they see the two as inseparable? These are genuine questions. I simply don't understand how it all links up. > > dhw:The answer to a “state of what” is apparently our old friend “information”, which is thrown in without any definition of what it actually means.-Every organized being or machine runs on information. I've presented another article today to help you capture this concept. Information theory is vital to our understanding of life's processes.- > dhw:It's a wonderfully dramatic conclusion to a beautifully written piece, but bearing in mind the statement that elementary particles (not information) which are made of nothing are the basic building blocks of the material world, perhaps you can explain to me whether (a) the author is telling us that matter is real or not, and (b) how the material brain with its billions of material neurons constitutes the “I” (identity) when it is “compressed” to...exactly what? -The 'particles' are not nothing. They are points of energy moving in wave-like fashion, appearing as waves or points, depending on the method of measurement. Their absolute location is not every fully known, but is a sum of probabilities. Welcome to the quantum world at the base of our reality.-> > dhw: Along the way, there are intriguing hints at BBella's concept of the oneness of everything, and perhaps the lines of thought might fit in with your own concept of an immaterial identity. My apologies if my confusion is not shared by anyone else.-Your confusion is shared by all of us. But the quantum formulas work when you throw out infinities ('renormalization').
Quantum weirdness: superposition
by David Turell , Thursday, December 31, 2015, 15:01 (3039 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 31, 2015, 15:07
Again in two places at the same time, but with atoms:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930544-500-new-quantum-record-as-ball-of-atoms-ends-up-in-two-spots-at-once/-"TRY to imagine a tiny ball sitting on one fingertip yet also on your shoulder at the same instant. Are you struggling? Most of us can't conceive of an object being in two places at once - yet physicists have just demonstrated the effect over a distance of half a metre, smashing previous records.-"It's an example of superposition, the idea that an object can exist in two quantum states at the same time. This persists until it is observed, causing a property called its wave function to collapse into one state or the other. The same principle allows Schrödinger's cat to be both dead and alive inside a box until you open the lid.-"We often think of quantum mechanics as applying only to subatomic particles, but there is nothing in the theory that limits its range. That's why experiments try to probe the transition between the quantum and everyday realms. “We're all wondering whether there is some regime where superpositions turn into classical states of matter,” says Mark Kasevich of Stanford University in California.-"To find out, Kasevich and his colleagues created a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) - a cloud of 10,000 rubidium atoms, all in the same quantum state. They shot this cloud, just a few millimetres across, up a 10-metre-high chamber using lasers, which also gradually push the atoms into two separate states.-"By the time the BEC reaches the top of the chamber, its wave function is a 50-50 mixture of those states, representing positions 54 centimetres apart. It stays in this superposition for about a second, then falls back down. At the bottom, the lasers turn the two states back into one, and this reveals that the atoms appear to arrive from two different heights, confirming that the BEC was indeed in a superposition at the top of the chamber."-Comment: Weirdness without a clear explanation. And this is the basis of our reality.
Quantum weirdness: How real is reality? Matt!!!
by David Turell , Monday, January 11, 2016, 19:49 (3028 days ago) @ David Turell
This article discusses the philosophic ontological and epistemological approaches to quantum mechanics:-http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/01/05/462010293/how-real-is-reality-"But when physicists began probing the realm of the atom, the behavior they found was very weird and very different from what's observed for macro-scale objects like billiard balls and planets. In response to this dilemma, the founders of quantum created a new kind of mathematical physics that could describe what was seen in experiments. More importantly, this mathematics predicted the outcome of experiments with astonishing accuracy — basically the equivalent to firing a rifle bullet from New York City at a target in Los Angeles and nailing the bull's eye to within the width of a dime. It was that good.-"The only problem was that no one knew how to interpret the mathematics.-"This meant there was no simple way for understanding what the mathematics was describing. It couldn't tell us what, for example, an electron was — in-and-of-itself. And if we couldn't picture the stuff making up reality (like electrons) then we must still be in the dark about reality itself.-***-"For the first camp, the mathematics directly describes a reality that is independent and objective. In this view, quantum mechanics is an ontological theory (ontology is the branch of philosophy dealing with what truly exists). For the second camp, however, the mathematics of quantum mechanics describes only our knowledge of the world. For these folks, quantum physics is an epistemological theory (epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with what human beings know and how they know it).-"Ontology vs. Epistemology: the world in-and-of-itself vs. just our knowledge about the world. The split between these camps can get pretty contentious. That's because most physicists start off as ontologists. When we're young we get excited about our equations. We think they are so powerful they seem to be like "thoughts in the mind of God," pointing to a truth that lies beyond the daily concerns and limitations of human life.-***-"The problem with all these interpretations is that, in general, there remains no way to distinguish between them experimentally. All anyone can do is argue philosophical positions based on, well, philosophy.-"In a few cases, however, so-called "no-go" theorems have been proven — turning out to be enormously powerful. A no-go theorem tells scientists when certain kinds of physical situations are fundamentally impossible to achieve given the laws we understand. For example, in 1964 John Bell derived a set of relations (the Bell Inequalities) that could distinguish between true quantum weirdness and the possibility of a more classical "normal" reality hidden beneath what was seen in experiments. Experiments using Bell's no-go theorem eventually showed that quantum weirdness ruled.-"More recently there has been so-called PBR theorem (which has nothing to do with hipster beer but, instead, was named after its creators Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph). PBR is also a no-go theorem that appeared to eliminate an entire class of epistemological interpretations for quantum physics. It was a very big deal — and its meaning is still being debated. But the PBR theorem didn't eliminate the most epistemological of epistemological interpretations. This is the so-called Copenhagen view that claims there is no way to talk about the world having any properties in-and-of-itself. In the Copenhagen interpretation, electrons don't have intrinsic properties like position or spin. It's only the act of measurement that makes the electrons take on specific values of these properties.-"So which is it? Does the world have an intrinsic ontology? Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it? Or is it all a mush of potential and possibility about which only our knowledge takes on a stable form?-"The fundamental question remains. How real is reality?"-Comment: Any thoughts?
Quantum weirdness: How real is reality? Matt!!!
by BBella , Monday, January 11, 2016, 23:01 (3028 days ago) @ David Turell
Thanks, David. My favorite kind of read.->Comment: Any thoughts?-My thoughts (unfixed as they are) below:-> This article discusses the philosophic ontological and epistemological approaches to quantum mechanics: > > http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/01/05/462010293/how-real-is-reality &... > In the Copenhagen interpretation, electrons don't have intrinsic properties like position or spin. It's only the act of measurement that makes the electrons take on specific values of these properties.-It is within the very act of measuring (or simply observing) that the fabric of reality becomes momentarily fixed. The quantum fabric is the goo of potential. Reality is made when we observe or measure the goo of potential. >"Does the world have an intrinsic ontology? -It would seem to me the answer is yes. In the sense that reality itself is made within the goo of potential upon measuring or observing. This is the goo's intrinsic nature. ->Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it? -Nothing is independent. ->Or is it all a mush of potential and possibility about which only our knowledge takes on a stable form?-Yes. > "The fundamental question remains. How real is reality?"-Reality is real, it's just ever changing, evolving from one potential to the next within the goo of All that Is.
Quantum weirdness: How real is reality? Matt!!!
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 00:33 (3028 days ago) @ BBella
> >"Does the world have an intrinsic ontology? > > Bbella: It would seem to me the answer is yes. In the sense that reality itself is made within the goo of potential upon measuring or observing. This is the goo's intrinsic nature. -Makes sense to me. > > >Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it? > > Bbella: Nothing is independent. -If the source is God, is He independent?- > > "The fundamental question remains. How real is reality?" > > Bbella: Reality is real, it's just ever changing, evolving from one potential to the next within the goo of All that Is.-Is tis evolution guided?
Quantum weirdness: How real is reality? Matt!!!
DAVID: This article discusses the philosophic ontological and epistemological approaches to quantum mechanics:http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/01/05/462010293/how-real-is-reality-QUOTE: "So which is it? Does the world have an intrinsic ontology? Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it? Or is it all a mush of potential and possibility about which only our knowledge takes on a stable form? "The fundamental question remains. How real is reality?"-DAVID: Comment: Any thoughts?-I come back to epistemology. There has to be an objective reality “out there”, but the nearest we subjective humans can get to it is a general consensus among those who are aware of the “reality” under discussion. There is no general consensus on most of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum - if there were, we would not be discussing them.-QUESTION: Is there something out there independent of us that has specific properties in-and-of-it? BBELLA: Nothing is independent.-Personally, I have no doubt that even in the absence of “us”, the billions of solar systems would continue to come and go. And I have no doubt that they have specific material properties that caused them to come and will cause them to go. The same applies to the whole of the material world. I agree that we are dependent on the material world, but I do not think the material world is dependent on us. DAVID: If the source is God, is He independent?-You'll have to wait and see - or not see!-QUESTION: Or is it all a mush of potential and possibility about which only our knowledge takes on a stable form? BELLA: Yes.-I am not sure how stable our so-called “knowledge” is (see above). The quantum world is currently so incomprehensible that I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusions from it at all about the nature of reality. QUESTION: The fundamental question remains. How real is reality? BBELLA: Reality is real, it's just ever changing, evolving from one potential to the next within the goo of All that Is.-That is my view too, and this “reality” ranges from our own lives to the rest of the universe, and from past to present to future. But for humans, “reality” can ultimately only be subjective, as above, though that does not mean it is not also objectively real. We just don't have any way of "knowing".
Quantum weirdness: How real is reality? Matt!!!
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 21:54 (3027 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Personally, I have no doubt that even in the absence of “us”, the billions of solar systems would continue to come and go. And I have no doubt that they have specific material properties that caused them to come and will cause them to go. The same applies to the whole of the material world. I agree that we are dependent on the material world, but I do not think the material world is dependent on us.-The material world is there for us to use. > > dhw: I am not sure how stable our so-called “knowledge” is (see above). The quantum world is currently so incomprehensible that I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusions from it at all about the nature of reality.-We know our layer of reality. It is the quantum layer that is only partially revealed to us, a limit to our knowledge.
Quantum weirdness: noise is spontanous
by David Turell , Thursday, July 14, 2016, 18:18 (2843 days ago) @ David Turell
Is quantum mechanics deterministic or totally random:-http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/the-noise-at-the-bottom-of-the-universe-"To a physicist, perfect quiet is the ultimate noise. Silence your cellphone, still your thoughts, and muffle every kind of vibration, and you would still be left with quantum noise. It represents an indeterminacy deep within nature, bursts of static and inexplicable motions that cannot be gotten rid of, or made sense of. It seems devoid of meaning.-"Considering how pervasive this noise is, you might presume that physicists would have a good explanation for it. But it remains one of the great unsolved problems in science. Quantum theory is silent not just on where the noise comes from, but on how exactly it enters the world. The theory's defining equation, the Schrödinger equation, is completely deterministic. There is no noise in it at all. To explain why we observe quantum particles to be noisy, we need some additional principle-"For physicists in the Niels Bohr tradition, the act of observation itself is decisive. The Schrödinger equation defines a menu of possibilities for what a particle could do, but only when measured does the particle actually do anything, choosing at random from the menu. Identical particles will make different choices, causing the outcomes of fundamental processes to vary in an uncontrollable way. On Bohr's view, quantum noise cannot be explained further. It is what physicist John Wheeler called “an elementary act of creation,” with no antecedents. Genesis was not a singular event in the distant past, but an ongoing process that we bring about. We create the world by observing it.-"To skeptics such as Einstein, that view is both wonderfully romantic and completely incoherent. Who are “we”? What is “observing”? Physicists and philosophers have spent the better part of a century seeking a less hand-wavy explanation, taking one of two general directions. Maybe quantum noise, like the noise we encounter in daily life, has a meaning that escapes us. It may seem indeterministic, but could be produced by deterministic processes that, for whatever reason, we can't see.-***-" In 1986, three physicists—GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber—proposed that not only is quantum noise meaningless, but experimenters don't trigger it. In fact, nothing does. It shows up, completely unprompted—perhaps once every 100 million years for an individual particle.-"Within the interpretational debate, the GRW theory and its variants play a special role. Although they are not the only indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, they are the only interpretation that exposes the indeterminism for all to see—as noise—rather than bury it at a subquantum level. GRW is also one of the few interpretations that is testable empirically. Here, at last, is a data-driven test for a debate that hails from the days of Democritus and Plato: Is the universe at its root deterministic or not?-"The GRW theory supposes that noise sporadically strikes particles and causes them to materialize in one of the locations open to them. This can't happen very often, or else particle behavior would deviate from the Schrödinger equation all the time. Once every 100 million years is enough, because when the blow does come, its effect is greatly amplified by quantum entanglement—the spooky interconnection of particles. A hit on one particle is felt by all those it is entangled with.-*** "GRW is a powerful theory, but none of its experimental predictions has held up so far-***-"Determinism wouldn't strictly eliminate the noise, but merely relocate it. Through the laws of physics, we could trace the origins of each burst of noise—it wouldn't appear out of nowhere, as in the GRW theory, but would occur because particles had been on certain trajectories. In principle, we could unwind those trajectories back to the initial conditions of the universe, which would consist of all the noise of history, lumped together. Whatever the source of noise, it is the raw material of the world, sculpted into rich patterns through processes of evolution and emergence.-"In the lab, physicists seek to strip away the noise of the world and expose its simple core. But at some deeper level, they strip away signal to expose noise, and pivot a foundational question on it. So is noise really signal? “To God all is signal,” the University of Southern California engineering and law professor Bart Kosko once wrote. If anything, though, the opposite is true: To God all is noise; only to man, who constructs his own meaning, is anything a signal at all."-Comment: At the basis of the universe is still total confusion. Perhaps we are not ever to solve the mystery. Is this God's purpose?
Quantum weirdness: noise is spontanous
by BBella , Thursday, July 14, 2016, 22:53 (2843 days ago) @ David Turell
Is quantum mechanics deterministic or totally random: > > http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/the-noise-at-the-bottom-of-the-universe ... > "To a physicist, perfect quiet is the ultimate noise. Silence your cellphone, still your thoughts, and muffle every kind of vibration, and you would still be left with quantum noise. It represents an indeterminacy deep within nature, bursts of static and inexplicable motions that cannot be gotten rid of, or made sense of. It seems devoid of meaning. > > "Considering how pervasive this noise is, you might presume that physicists would have a good explanation for it. But it remains one of the great unsolved problems in science. Quantum theory is silent not just on where the noise comes from, but on how exactly it enters the world. The theory's defining equation, the Schrödinger equation, is completely deterministic. There is no noise in it at all. To explain why we observe quantum particles to be noisy, we need some additional principle > > "For physicists in the Niels Bohr tradition, the act of observation itself is decisive. The Schrödinger equation defines a menu of possibilities for what a particle could do, but only when measured does the particle actually do anything, choosing at random from the menu. Identical particles will make different choices, causing the outcomes of fundamental processes to vary in an uncontrollable way. On Bohr's view, quantum noise cannot be explained further. It is what physicist John Wheeler called “an elementary act of creation,” with no antecedents. Genesis was not a singular event in the distant past, but an ongoing process that we bring about. We create the world by observing it. > > "To skeptics such as Einstein, that view is both wonderfully romantic and completely incoherent. Who are “we”? What is “observing”? Physicists and philosophers have spent the better part of a century seeking a less hand-wavy explanation, taking one of two general directions. Maybe quantum noise, like the noise we encounter in daily life, has a meaning that escapes us. It may seem indeterministic, but could be produced by deterministic processes that, for whatever reason, we can't see. > > *** > > " In 1986, three physicists—GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber—proposed that not only is quantum noise meaningless, but experimenters don't trigger it. In fact, nothing does. It shows up, completely unprompted—perhaps once every 100 million years for an individual particle. > > "Within the interpretational debate, the GRW theory and its variants play a special role. Although they are not the only indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, they are the only interpretation that exposes the indeterminism for all to see—as noise—rather than bury it at a subquantum level. GRW is also one of the few interpretations that is testable empirically. Here, at last, is a data-driven test for a debate that hails from the days of Democritus and Plato: Is the universe at its root deterministic or not? > > "The GRW theory supposes that noise sporadically strikes particles and causes them to materialize in one of the locations open to them. This can't happen very often, or else particle behavior would deviate from the Schrödinger equation all the time. Once every 100 million years is enough, because when the blow does come, its effect is greatly amplified by quantum entanglement—the spooky interconnection of particles. A hit on one particle is felt by all those it is entangled with. > > *** > "GRW is a powerful theory, but none of its experimental predictions has held up so far > > *** > > "Determinism wouldn't strictly eliminate the noise, but merely relocate it. Through the laws of physics, we could trace the origins of each burst of noise—it wouldn't appear out of nowhere, as in the GRW theory, but would occur because particles had been on certain trajectories. In principle, we could unwind those trajectories back to the initial conditions of the universe, which would consist of all the noise of history, lumped together. Whatever the source of noise, it is the raw material of the world, sculpted into rich patterns through processes of evolution and emergence. > > "In the lab, physicists seek to strip away the noise of the world and expose its simple core. But at some deeper level, they strip away signal to expose noise, and pivot a foundational question on it. So is noise really signal? “To God all is signal,” the University of Southern California engineering and law professor Bart Kosko once wrote. If anything, though, the opposite is true: To God all is noise; only to man, who constructs his own meaning, is anything a signal at all." > > Comment: At the basis of the universe is still total confusion. Perhaps we are not ever to solve the mystery. Is this God's purpose?-To me, this is not total confusion, but what I was alluding to and hoping to find a path of discussion about this, and its implications, when I first showed up here those many years ago. Not surprising, my mind is not as clear about it now, but the implications are just as real.
Quantum weirdness: noise is spontanous
by David Turell , Thursday, July 14, 2016, 23:01 (2843 days ago) @ BBella
Comment: At the basis of the universe is still total confusion. Perhaps we are not ever to solve the mystery. Is this God's purpose? > > Bbella: To me, this is not total confusion, but what I was alluding to and hoping to find a path of discussion about this, and its implications, when I first showed up here those many years ago. Not surprising, my mind is not as clear about it now, but the implications are just as real.-What this brings to mind is the Wizard of Oz. Is God hiding behind a Quanta curtain running the show, but in His case it is not all sham but real?
Quantum weirdness: seven solutions
by David Turell , Sunday, July 17, 2016, 15:14 (2841 days ago) @ David Turell
With experts voting here are poll results:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2097199-seven-ways-to-skin-schrodingers-cat/-So what are our best guesses? In 2011, 33 physicists and philosophers at a conference in Austria on “Quantum physics and the nature of reality” were asked to nominate their favourites, listed below. The percentages of the delegates backing the various options do not add up to 100 - in keeping with the spirit of quantum theory, the poll allowed multiple answers.-The Copenhagen interpretation - 14 votes, 42 per cent-Critics of this view claim it is no explanation at all. But the Copenhagen interpretation, devised by quantum pioneer Niels Bohr and others in the Danish capital in the 1920s, remains by far the dominant way to explain away quantum weirdness. Often described as the “shut up and calculate” option, it basically says that since we are conditioned to think in terms of the classical world around us, the quantum world is in essence unknowable. Quantum theory is an extremely effective tool for making predictions, but no more than that. When we observe the quantum world, we force it to conform to our preconceptions - “collapsing” it into a classical shadow of itself.-The information interpretation - 8 votes, 24 per cent-Information-theory interpretations stem from a growing realisation among physicists that the most basic currency of reality might be not stuff, but stuff we know about stuff -bits of information. When we observe a quantum object, we extract information from it, and it is this that causes it to lose its quantum mojo.-Many worlds - 6 votes, 18 per cent-For a disciple of many worlds, the quantum realm is intrinsically fuzzy. Observing it does not create a single defined reality, but splits reality into as many parallel worlds as there were options for what might have been observed.-Objective collapse - 3 votes, 9 per cent-In this picture, there's no need for an observer to destroy an object's quantum nature - it happens spontaneously all the time, like radioactive particles randomly decaying. The more particles there are, the more speedily this happens. We are a clodhopping, already decayed, non-quantum bundle that entangle ourselves with any quantum object we observe, infecting it with classical physics.-Quantum Bayesianism - 2 votes, 6 per cent-Taking its cue from Bayesian probability, in which a 50 per cent probability of rain in the weather forecast is immediately updated to a 100 per cent probability when you open the curtain and see it's actually raining, quantum Bayesianism asserts that quantum uncertainty is all in our minds. Our confusion about how reality works at the finest scales is merely a product of our imperfect information about it.-Relational quantum mechanics - 2 votes, 6 per cent-In Einstein's relativity there is no absolute answer to whether two events are simultaneous - it depends on your point of view. Similarly, this interpretation asserts that no single observer can ever be in possession of all the facts about a quantum state - we are part of any measurement we make, so lack any full view of it.-The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation - no votes, 0 per cent-No one likes it - so why should we care? Because the idea has a long and rich history, being based on classic work by quantum pioneers Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, and isn't entirely done yet. The bewildering nature of quantum theory implies that there must be additional stuff we're not seeing - in this case it's “pilot waves” that guide the evolution of quantum states on some hitherto unexplored layer of reality.-Comment: Note that nothing like Kastner's transactional analysis is noted. Still confusion. From the article: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't understood quantum mechanics.” That jibe, supposedly made by physicist Richard Feynman half a century ago, still rings true today."
Quantum weirdness: neutrinos change flavors
by David Turell , Saturday, July 23, 2016, 15:26 (2835 days ago) @ David Turell
Broadcast and then analyzed hundreds of miles away:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-weird-quantum-effects-hundreds-miles.html-Now, MIT physicists have found that subatomic particles called neutrinos can be in superposition, without individual identities, when traveling hundreds of miles.-***-"The team analyzed data on the oscillations of neutrinos—subatomic particles that interact extremely weakly with matter, passing through our bodies by the billions per second without any effect. Neutrinos can oscillate, or change between several distinct "flavors," as they travel through the universe at close to the speed of light.-"The researchers obtained data from Fermilab's Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search, or MINOS, an experiment in which neutrinos are produced from the scattering of other accelerated, high-energy particles in a facility near Chicago and beamed to a detector in Soudan, Minnesota, 735 kilometers (456 miles) away. Although the neutrinos leave Illinois as one flavor, they may oscillate along their journey, arriving in Minnesota as a completely different flavor.-"The MIT team studied the distribution of neutrino flavors generated in Illinois, versus those detected in Minnesota, and found that these distributions can be explained most readily by quantum phenomena: As neutrinos sped between the reactor and detector, they were statistically most likely to be in a state of superposition, with no definite flavor or identity.-"What's more, the researchers found that the data was "in high tension" with more classical descriptions of how matter should behave. In particular, it was statistically unlikely that the data could be explained by any model of the sort that Einstein sought, in which objects would always embody definite properties rather than exist in superpositions.-"'What's fascinating is, many of us tend to think of quantum mechanics applying on small scales," says David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics at MIT. "But it turns out that we can't escape quantum mechanics, even when we describe processes that happen over large distances. We can't stop our quantum mechanical description even when these things leave one state and enter another, traveling hundreds of miles. I think that's breathtaking."-***-"But what if these particles truly embodied distinct flavors at each moment in time, rather than being some ghostly, neither-here-nor-there phantoms of quantum physics? What if these neutrinos behaved according to Einstein's realism-based view of the world? After all, there could be statistical flukes due to defects in instrumentation, that might still generate a distribution of neutrinos that the researchers observed. Kaiser says if that were the case and "the world truly obeyed Einstein's intuitions," the chances of such a model accounting for the observed data would be "something like one in a billion."-"'What gives people pause is, quantum mechanics is quantitatively precise and yet it comes with all this conceptual baggage," Kaiser says."-Comment: The universe is truly non-local. Everything is interconnected through quantum mechanics.
Quantum weirdness: does future affect the past
by David Turell , Monday, July 25, 2016, 02:14 (2833 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, July 25, 2016, 02:34
The long essay says maybe:-http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160708-the-past-is-not-set-in-stone-so-we-may-be-able-to-change-it-"Surely we can just say that the future does not affect the past because (duh!) it has not happened yet? Not really, for the question of where time's arrow comes from is more subtle and complicated than it seems.-"What's more, that statement might not even be true. Some scientists and philosophers think the future might indeed affect the past - although we would only find out when the future arrives. And it may be able to due to an emergent property of quantum mechanics.-***-"Those laws of motion make no distinction about the direction of time. If you watched a video of two billiard balls colliding and bouncing away, you would be unable to tell if it was being run forwards or backwards.-"The same time symmetry is found in the equations of quantum mechanics, which govern the behaviour of tiny things like atoms. So where does time's arrow come into the picture?-"There is a long-standing answer to this, which says that the arrow only enters once you start thinking about lots and lots of particles.-***-"In Boltzmann's picture, it takes a while for the arrow of time to find its direction. In the tiny fractions of a second after the partition between the two gases is removed, before any of the molecules have really moved anywhere, there is nothing to show which direction of time is forwards.-"Entropy increases when collisions between atoms even out their energies, as for example when the heat of hot coffee spreads out into the surrounding air. This process, which washes away reservoirs of energy, is called dissipation.-"Until dissipation starts to happen, a process looks much the same backwards or forwards in time. It does not really have a thermodynamic arrow.-"But there is a one-way process in quantum mechanics that happens much faster. It is called decoherence.-***-"Decoherence explains why objects on the everyday scale of coffee cups do not show the wave-like behaviour of quantum objects.-"It arises because quantum particles can be coordinated in their quantum waviness, but if there are lots of them - like the countless atoms in a coffee cup - they rapidly lose any coordination. This means the object they constitute cannot show quantum behaviour.-***-" In other words, decoherence is faster than dissipation - and it seems to only work one way. That means decoherence reveals the arrow of time faster than dissipation.-"This implies that the arrow of time really comes from quantum mechanics, not thermodynamics as Boltzmann thought.-***-"In effect, decoherence comes from the way interactions with atoms, photons and so on in an object's environment carry away information about the object and scatter it around. This is, in fact, a quantum version of entropy.-"In both the classical and the quantum cases, then, time's arrow comes from a loss of information. (my bold) "This offers a better way to think about time's arrow. It points in the direction in which information is lost and can never be retrieved.-***-"How does the particle "know" that it is going to be detected after passing through the screen, so that when it reaches the slits it "knows" whether to go through both slits or just one? How can the later measurement seem to affect the earlier behaviour?-"This effect is called "retrocausality", and it seems to imply that the arrow of time is not as strictly one-way as it seems. But does it really?-"Most physicists think that retrocausality in these delayed-choice experiments is an illusion created by the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics.-***-"According to Ellis, we can regard retrocausality as a kind of fuzziness in the "crystallisation of the present". "Quantum physics appears to allow some degree of influence of the present on the past, as indicated by delayed-choice experiments," he says.-***-"Our perception of time may not have much to do with the actual passage of time.-"What is clear is that the arrow of time, which seems like such a common-sense fact of life, is actually a profoundly tricky concept. The closer we look, the less we can be sure that the arrow is really always one-way."-Comment: And related to a loss of information. Where have we heard of that before? We do look back into the past when we use telescopes to view the universe, but we don't see the future, which we try to predict. Long complex article, needs to be read in full.
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement distance
by David Turell , Saturday, June 17, 2017, 22:46 (2505 days ago) @ David Turell
From Earth to satellite:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134843-chinese-satellite-beats-distance-record-fo...
"Now, entanglement has been preserved in pairs of photons sent by the Chinese satellite Micius to ground stations separated by 1203 kilometres — a new record.
“It took us almost 14 years to manage this achievement,” says Jian-Wei Pan of the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei.
"They first had to ensure that their source of entangled photons would survive the rigours of a launch and that the entangled photons wouldn’t be destroyed while traveling through about 10 kilometres of lower atmosphere, which is thick and turbulent. After successful ground-based tests of these technologies, such as using small telescopes to focus the photons to distant receivers, in August 2016 China launched Micius into orbit at an altitude of about 500 kilometres so it would take the same path over China at the same time each night.
"The next challenge was for ground stations to track the fast-moving satellite, and establish optical links to receive entangled photons. Three optical telescopes in Delingha in Tibet, and Lijiang and Nanshan in north-west China locked on to the satellite, which appeared briefly overhead once every night.
"The ground stations used adaptive optics — which is technology that can measure the turbulence of Earth’s atmosphere in real time and cancel out its blurring effects. They also used technology to filter out moonlight and light pollution from cities, to reduce the noise in the optical link to the satellite.
"For every pass of the satellite over China, which happened at night for about 275 seconds, it had to establish two such downlinks simultaneously, either between Delingha and Lijiang (1203 kilometres apart) or Delingha and Nanshan (1120 kilometres apart).
***
"The team also tested the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Einstein had argued that since quantum mechanics allows for entanglement, which he derided as “spooky action at a distance”, it must be an incomplete theory and that there must be an underlying reality to explain such weirdness. But the tests done on the entangled photons between the pairs of ground stations showed that quantum weirdness is real and cannot be explained by any Einsteinian notions of hidden reality."
Comment: the theory is the entire universe is entangled with quantum particles. they are the basis of God's reality.
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
by David Turell , Thursday, July 20, 2017, 19:30 (2472 days ago) @ David Turell
More loopholes closed. Odds entanglement is real are enormous:
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-realism.html
"Physicists have reported some of the strongest evidence yet that that the quantum world does not obey local realism by demonstrating new evidence for the existence of quantum entanglement. By performing an essentially loophole-free Bell test, they have shown that two atoms separated by a distance of a quarter of a mile share correlations that should be impossible under the hypothesis of local realism, and are most likely explained by quantum entanglement.
"The new Bell test was performed by a group of researchers led by Harald Weinfurter at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, both in Germany.
"The probability that the observed correlations can be explained by local realism due to some unknown "hidden variables" rather than entanglement is less than one in a billion, the physicists write in their paper published in Physical Review Letters. By accounting for all of their accumulated data, taken over the course of seven months, that probability drops even further, down to about one in ten quadrillion (the number 1 followed by 16 zeros). This means that the quantum world violates either locality (that distant objects cannot influence each other in less than a certain amount of time) or realism (that objects exist whether or not someone measures them), or possibly both." (my bold)
Comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
DAVID’s comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
So try stepping in front of a bus. (But I’d rather you didn’t.)
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
by David Turell , Friday, July 21, 2017, 19:57 (2471 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
dhw: So try stepping in front of a bus. (But I’d rather you didn’t.)
The bus has too many material quanta for me to try!
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 23, 2017, 19:52 (2469 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID’s comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
dhw: So try stepping in front of a bus. (But I’d rather you didn’t.)
David: The bus has too many material quanta for me to try!
Just replace spoon with bus..
![[image]](https://i.imgflip.com/c4y7b.jpg)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
by David Turell , Sunday, July 23, 2017, 23:15 (2469 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID’s comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
dhw: So try stepping in front of a bus. (But I’d rather you didn’t.)
David: The bus has too many material quanta for me to try!
Tony: Just replace spoon with bus..
Great response.
Quantum weirdness: new entanglement study
DAVID’s comment: We live in a quantum entangled non-local universe. The local realism we live in is not real as we experience it.
dhw: So try stepping in front of a bus. (But I’d rather you didn’t.)
David: The bus has too many material quanta for me to try!
TONY: Just replace spoon with bus..
Brilliant! Thank you.
Quantum weirdness: backflow
by David Turell , Monday, July 24, 2017, 15:54 (2468 days ago) @ dhw
Push a quantum particle forward and it may go in the opposite direction:
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/weird-quantum-mechanics-discovery-says-pushing-particle...
"Quantum mechanics continues to provide brain-busting discoveries as mathematicians find that quantum mechanical particles can move in the opposite direction of where they are being pushed. That’s like pushing a ball forward and having it roll back towards you instead.
"Scientists at Universities of York, Munich and Cardiff showed that on microscopic levels, quantum particles can travel in reverse of their momentum, exhibiting a special property called “backflow”.
"Researchers were aware of such movement previously but in free” quantum particles that don’t have any force acting on them. By using analysis and numerical methods, they found that backflow is always there, but as a small hard-to-measure effect.
"What’s responsible for this surprising property? Wave-particle duality, which holds that every particle may behave as a particle or a wave, and the “probabilistic nature” of quantum mechanics where particle properties are not fixated until observed.
***
“'This new theoretical analysis into quantum mechanical particles shows that this ‘backflow’ effect is ubiquitous in quantum physics,” said Bostelmann in a press release. “We have shown that backflow can always occur, even if a force is acting on the quantum particle while it travels. The backflow effect is the result of wave-particle duality and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and it is already well understood in an idealised case of force-free motion.”
"Dr. Daniela Cadamuro from the Technical University of Munich explained that while the scientists were aware of the backflow effect, it was always observed when no outside forces were acting on a particle, and the researchers showed that backflow continues to occur even with external forces present, meaning that such forces “don't destroy the backflow effect, which is an exciting new discovery.'”
Comment: Just when you think it can't get weirder it does.
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2018, 19:34 (2203 days ago) @ David Turell
The energy particles that make up our so-called solid material world have really created articles that are mostly space!
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo44/the-unthinkable-universe.php
"Consider one of the carbon atoms in the wood of my desk. It has a compact nucleus of six protons and six neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of six electrons. Although the physical size of the atom is infinitesimal, the relative distance between the nucleus and the outer edge of the electron cloud is enormous—think of our Solar System, but on a microcosmic scale.
"The Solar System contains a huge amount of material in the sun, planets, and interplanetary media, yet physical matter makes up less than one part in a trillion of its volume. With all of that empty space, we could characterize the Solar System as a gigantic vacuum that contains a few impurities.
"Similarly, each of the gazillion atoms in my desk is a tiny "impure" vacuum that mysteriously gives rise to our perceptions of color, texture, and hardness. Yet that is only the tip of material world weirdness.
***
"Equally strange is the phenomenon of the electrons' "orbit." Unlike the Earth, whose orbit is slowly spiraling toward the sun, the electrons in an atom are held in fixed regions. But the real mystery is why, given its positively charged nucleus and negatively charged electrons, the atom doesn't quickly self-destruct. In fact, according to the laws of electrodynamics, atomic annihilation should occur in less than a microsecond.
"The stability—indeed, the very existence—of the atom suggests something supra-natural. But since the materialistic worldview does not allow for that, its adherents were challenged to discover a mechanism by which atomic stability could be maintained. However, instead of making a discovery, they settled for coming up with a term, "quantum confinement," which is a scientific label describing, rather than explaining, the phenomenon.
"What they did discover, albeit reluctantly, is that quantum weirdness arises because subatomic particles do not even exist in any objective sense. Rather, they are observer-dependent products resulting from our disturbance of—another descriptive construct, giving the impression of explanation—the "quantum potential."
"But get this: the quantum potential is neither matter nor energy; rather, as its name implies, it is "potentiality"—an invisible substrate that permeates the whole cosmos and provides the potential for being. Thus, when physicists talk about an electron, what they are really talking about is an existential abstraction described by mathematical formulae and probability functions. As quantum theory pioneer Werner Heisenberg once wrote, "elementary particles . . . form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things and facts."
***
"Over 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Anaximander posited an eternal, ubiquitous substance he called the "apeiron." Like the quantum potential, this apeiron was thought to be the fount of all reality.
"In the 25 centuries since Anaximander, we have come no closer than he did to gaining a fundamental understanding of this mysterious substance. Now, as then, questions remain as to where it came from, what fuels it, and why its creative ability is limitless. Is the quantum potential even a "something" in the materialistic sense?
"Those under the spell of materialism will answer yes, because any gap in their understanding of nature must be plugged with physical mortar. But since their "mortar" is neither matter nor energy, it is not physical. And because of its numinous nature, it cannot be observed. Rather, it must be inferred from its influence on what is observable.
***
"Nagel, who himself is not a strict materialist, lets on that materialism is a belief system grounded, not in a rational examination of how the world is, but in a non-rational sensibility of how a person feels the world should be. The conflict arises because, as Heisenberg explained, "The ontology of materialism rest[s] on the illusion that . . . existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range".
"That leaves materialists to explain the unexplainable, absent the Cosmic Authority, with a stranger-than-fiction narrative in which everything comes from nothing through lofty labels and clever constructs.'"
Comment: This is why I place our soul in the quantum reality level undergirding the reality we observe as I previously posed: Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 15:24. I firmly believe God's quantum consciousness runs the universe.
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
QUOTE: "Nagel, who himself is not a strict materialist, lets on that materialism is a belief system grounded, not in a rational examination of how the world is, but in a non-rational sensibility of how a person feels the world should be. The conflict arises because, as Heisenberg explained, "The ontology of materialism rest[s] on the illusion that . . . existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range".
"That leaves materialists to explain the unexplainable, absent the Cosmic Authority, with a stranger-than-fiction narrative in which everything comes from nothing through lofty labels and clever constructs.'"
DAVID’s comment: This is why I place our soul in the quantum reality level undergirding the reality we observe as I previously posed: Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 15:24. I firmly believe God's quantum consciousness runs the universe.
An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the argument. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2018, 15:26 (2203 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Nagel, who himself is not a strict materialist, lets on that materialism is a belief system grounded, not in a rational examination of how the world is, but in a non-rational sensibility of how a person feels the world should be. The conflict arises because, as Heisenberg explained, "The ontology of materialism rest[s] on the illusion that . . . existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range".
"That leaves materialists to explain the unexplainable, absent the Cosmic Authority, with a stranger-than-fiction narrative in which everything comes from nothing through lofty labels and clever constructs.'"DAVID’s comment: This is why I place our soul in the quantum reality level undergirding the reality we observe as I previously posed: Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 15:24. I firmly believe God's quantum consciousness runs the universe.
dhw: An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the argument. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.
Yes, acceptance of First Cause is a big step, but logical. "Why is there anything?". Whether theist or atheist something is eternal. What for the agnostic?
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
dhw: An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the argument. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.
DAVID: Yes, acceptance of First Cause is a big step, but logical. "Why is there anything?". Whether theist or atheist something is eternal. What for the agnostic?
Some folk claim that the First Cause was the big bang, and there was nothing before it; others claim that an impersonal universe of unconscious, ever-changing energy and matter was the First Cause; theists claim that a conscious being was the First Cause. First Cause is whatever you want it to be, and consequently has absolutely no value in itself as an explanation.
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 15:13 (2202 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the argument. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.
DAVID: Yes, acceptance of First Cause is a big step, but logical. "Why is there anything?". Whether theist or atheist something is eternal. What for the agnostic?
dhw: Some folk claim that the First Cause was the big bang, and there was nothing before it; others claim that an impersonal universe of unconscious, ever-changing energy and matter was the First Cause; theists claim that a conscious being was the First Cause. First Cause is whatever you want it to be, and consequently has absolutely no value in itself as an explanation.
Then you have no concept that there must be a first cause?
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
DAVID: Yes, acceptance of First Cause is a big step, but logical. "Why is there anything?". Whether theist or atheist something is eternal. What for the agnostic?
dhw: Some folk claim that the First Cause was the big bang, and there was nothing before it; others claim that an impersonal universe of unconscious, ever-changing energy and matter was the First Cause; theists claim that a conscious being was the First Cause. First Cause is whatever you want it to be, and consequently has absolutely no value in itself as an explanation.
DAVID: Then you have no concept that there must be a first cause?
Of course there has to be a first cause, and I have just given you three options. I mentioned First Cause as an example of “lofty labels and clever constructs” that explain nothing. Here is the context:
An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the story. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.
Theists use “First Cause” as if it somehow supports their faith. It doesn’t.
Quantum weirdness: materialism doesn't fit
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 20:29 (2200 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes, acceptance of First Cause is a big step, but logical. "Why is there anything?". Whether theist or atheist something is eternal. What for the agnostic?
dhw: Some folk claim that the First Cause was the big bang, and there was nothing before it; others claim that an impersonal universe of unconscious, ever-changing energy and matter was the First Cause; theists claim that a conscious being was the First Cause. First Cause is whatever you want it to be, and consequently has absolutely no value in itself as an explanation.
DAVID: Then you have no concept that there must be a first cause?
dhw: Of course there has to be a first cause, and I have just given you three options. I mentioned First Cause as an example of “lofty labels and clever constructs” that explain nothing. Here is the context:
An excellent and illuminating presentation of one half of the story. The other half, of course, is that theism leaves theists to explain the unexplainable through a stranger-than-fiction narrative whereby, through lofty labels and clever constructs (First Cause springs to mind), an infinitely powerful and conscious being did not come from anywhere but has always existed.Theists use “First Cause” as if it somehow supports their faith. It doesn’t.
Thank you for your view.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement across time periods
by David Turell , Thursday, April 19, 2018, 18:11 (2199 days ago) @ David Turell
Israeli research has entangled unrelated photons from different time periods:
https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time?...
"Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?
"The answer, as it turns out, is yes. Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.
***
"The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
***
"The lesson carries over directly to both spatial and temporal quantum nonlocality. Mysteries regarding entangled pairs of particles amount to disagreements about labelling, brought about by relativity. Einstein showed that no sequence of events can be metaphysically privileged – can be considered more real – than any other. Only by accepting this insight can one make headway on such quantum puzzles.
***
"These findings drive yet another wedge between our beloved classical intuitions and the empirical realities of quantum mechanics. As was true for Schrödinger and his contemporaries, scientific progress is going to involve investigating the limitations of certain metaphysical views. Schrödinger’s cat, half-alive and half-dead, was created to illustrate how the entanglement of systems leads to macroscopic phenomena that defy our usual understanding of the relations between objects and their properties: an organism such as a cat is either dead or alive. No middle ground there.
"Most contemporary philosophical accounts of the relationship between objects and their properties embrace entanglement solely from the perspective of spatial nonlocality. But there’s still significant work to be done on incorporating temporal nonlocality – not only in object-property discussions, but also in debates over material composition (such as the relation between a lump of clay and the statue it forms), and part-whole relations (such as how a hand relates to a limb, or a limb to a person). For example, the ‘puzzle’ of how parts fit with an overall whole presumes clear-cut spatial boundaries among underlying components, yet spatial nonlocality cautions against this view. Temporal nonlocality further complicates this picture: how does one describe an entity whose constituent parts are not even coexistent?
"Discerning the nature of entanglement might at times be an uncomfortable project. It’s not clear what substantive metaphysics might emerge from scrutiny of fascinating new research by the likes of Megidish and other physicists. In a letter to Einstein, Schrödinger notes wryly (and deploying an odd metaphor): ‘One has the feeling that it is precisely the most important statements of the new theory that can really be squeezed into these Spanish boots – but only with difficulty.’ We cannot afford to ignore spatial or temporal nonlocality in future metaphysics: whether or not the boots fit, we’ll have to wear ’em."
Comment: Our universe is grounded in quantum reality. We will stay confused, perhaps as God intended, until we understand it, if we ever can. God must exist in the layer of quantum reality that we can currently only glimpse at across the wall of uncertainty. Look at the diagram to understand how they conducted the experiment.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement across time periods
QUOTE: “But there’s still significant work to be done on incorporating temporal nonlocality – not only in object-property discussions, but also in debates over material composition (such as the relation between a lump of clay and the statue it forms), and part-whole relations (such as how a hand relates to a limb, or a limb to a person). For example, the ‘puzzle’ of how parts fit with an overall whole presumes clear-cut spatial boundaries among underlying components, yet spatial nonlocality cautions against this view. Temporal nonlocality further complicates this picture: how does one describe an entity whose constituent parts are not even coexistent?
DAVID's comment: Our universe is grounded in quantum reality. We will stay confused, perhaps as God intended, until we understand it, if we ever can. God must exist in the layer of quantum reality that we can currently only glimpse at across the wall of uncertainty.
If there really is a different reality out there which includes your God, I doubt if we will ever understand it unless he explains it to us! But what interested me in the above quote was “the puzzle of how parts fit with an overall whole”. This is the question which I think may pave the way to a reconciliation between materialism and dualism. And one day I'll try to tackle it!
Quantum weirdness: entanglement across time periods
by David Turell , Friday, April 20, 2018, 15:18 (2199 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “But there’s still significant work to be done on incorporating temporal nonlocality – not only in object-property discussions, but also in debates over material composition (such as the relation between a lump of clay and the statue it forms), and part-whole relations (such as how a hand relates to a limb, or a limb to a person). For example, the ‘puzzle’ of how parts fit with an overall whole presumes clear-cut spatial boundaries among underlying components, yet spatial nonlocality cautions against this view. Temporal nonlocality further complicates this picture: how does one describe an entity whose constituent parts are not even coexistent?
DAVID's comment: Our universe is grounded in quantum reality. We will stay confused, perhaps as God intended, until we understand it, if we ever can. God must exist in the layer of quantum reality that we can currently only glimpse at across the wall of uncertainty.
dhw:If there really is a different reality out there which includes your God, I doubt if we will ever understand it unless he explains it to us! But what interested me in the above quote was “the puzzle of how parts fit with an overall whole”. This is the question which I think may pave the way to a reconciliation between materialism and dualism. And one day I'll try to tackle it!
Months of promise. Why not now?
Quantum weirdness: what is quantum reality?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 26, 2018, 22:45 (2192 days ago) @ David Turell
Another breathless commentary on the fact that we don't know what is going on:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-quantum-anomalies-make-us-reth...
"Kuhn pointed out, when enough “anomalies”—empirically undeniable observations that cannot be accommodated by the reigning belief system—accumulate over time and reach critical mass, paradigms change. We may be close to one such a defining moment today, as an increasing body of evidence from quantum mechanics (QM) renders the current paradigm untenable.
***
"The problem is that, according to QM, the outcome of an observation can depend on the way another, separate but simultaneous, observation is performed. This happens with so-called “quantum entanglement” and it contradicts the current paradigm in an important sense, as discussed above. Although Einstein argued in 1935 that the contradiction arose merely because QM is incomplete, John Bell proved mathematically, in 1964, that the predictions of QM regarding entanglement cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s alleged incompleteness.
***
"The only alternative left for those holding on to the current paradigm is to postulate some form of non-locality: nature must have—or so they speculate—observation-independent hidden properties, entirely missed by QM, which are “smeared out” across spacetime. It is this allegedly omnipresent, invisible but objective background that supposedly orchestrates entanglement from “behind the scenes.”
"It turns out, however, that some predictions of QM are incompatible with non-contextuality even for a large and important class of non-local theories. Experimental results reported in 2007 and 2010 have confirmed these predictions. To reconcile these results with the current paradigm would require a profoundly counterintuitive redefinition of what we call “objectivity.” And since contemporary culture has come to associate objectivity with reality itself, the science press felt compelled to report on this by pronouncing, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality.”
"The tension between the anomalies and the current paradigm can only be tolerated by ignoring the anomalies. This has been possible so far because the anomalies are only observed in laboratories. Yet we know that they are there, for their existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, when we believe that we see objects and events outside and independent of mind, we are wrong in at least some essential sense. A new paradigm is needed to accommodate and make sense of the anomalies; one wherein mind itself is understood to be the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves." (my bold)
Comment: Since mind/consciousness affects every quantum observation, the bolded statement above must be taken very seriously. Quantum reality may be God's mind at work, as if the universe is an extension of His mind.
Quantum weirdness: two temperatures in one body!
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 17:36 (2047 days ago) @ David Turell
A cat can be alive and dead and a new study finds two different temperatures in one item:
https://www.livescience.com/63595-schrodinger-uncertainty-relation-temperature.html?utm...
"In 1927, German physicist Werner Heisenberg postulated that the more precisely you measure a quantum particle's position, the less precisely you can know its momentum, and vice versa — a rule that would become the now-famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
"A new uncertainty principle holds that quantum objects can be at two temperatures at once, which is similar to the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, in which a cat in a box with a radioactive element can be both alive and dead.
"The famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat implies that a cat in a box can be both dead and alive at the same time — a bizarre phenomenon that is a consequence of quantum mechanics.
"Now, physicists at the University of Exeter in England have found that a similar state of limbo may exist for temperatures: Objects can be two temperatures at the same time at the quantum level. This weird quantum paradox is the first completely new quantum uncertainty relation to be formulated in decades.
"The new quantum uncertainty, which states that the more precisely you know temperature, the less you can say about energy, and vice versa, has big implications for nanoscience, which studies incredibly tiny objects smaller than a nanometer. This principle will change how scientists measure the temperature of extremely small things such as quantum dots, small semiconductors or single cells, the researchers said in the new study.
***
"The researchers used math and theory to predict exactly how such superposition affects the measurement of the temperature of quantum objects.
"'In the quantum case, a quantum thermometer ... will be in a superposition of energy states simultaneously,"Harry Miller, one of the physicists at the University of Exeter who developed the new principle, told Live Science. "What we find is that because the thermometer no longer has a well-defined energy and is actually in a combination of different states at once, that this actually contributes to the uncertainty in the temperature that we can measure."
"In our world, a thermometer may tell us an object is between 31 and 32 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 0.5 and zero degrees Celsius). In the quantum world, a thermometer may tell us an object is both those temperatures at the same time. The new uncertainty principle accounts for that quantum weirdness.
"Interactions between objects at the quantum scale can create superpositions, and also create energy. The old uncertainty relation ignored these effects, because it doesn't matter for nonquantum objects. But it matters a lot when you're trying to measure the temperature of a quantum dot, and this new uncertainty relation makes up a theoretical framework to take these interactions into account."
Comment: Another addition to quantum wackiness, which is the basis of our reality.
Quantum weirdness: two realities at the same time
by David Turell , Monday, March 25, 2019, 04:01 (1860 days ago) @ David Turell
Predicted by Wigner and now proven:
https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter...
"Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state — and yet both of their observations would be correct.
"For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in the thought experiment.
***
"When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or horizontal.
"However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.
"Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.
"That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet, neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong, according to quantum mechanics.
***
"The two friends of Alice and Bob, who were located "inside" each of the labs, each measured one photon in an entangled pair. This broke the entanglement and collapsed the superposition, meaning that the photon they measured existed in a definite state of polarization. They recorded the results in quantum memory — copied in the polarization of the second photon.
"Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory, and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.
***
"The authors of the new study found that even in their doubled scenario, the results described by Wigner held. Alice and Bob could arrive at conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were also correct and provable, according to the study.
"Quantum mechanics describes how the world works at a scale so small that the normal rules of physics no longer apply; over many decades, experts who study the field have offered numerous interpretations of what that means, Ringbauer said.
"However, if measurements themselves aren't absolutes — as these new findings suggest — that challenges the very meaning of quantum mechanics.
"'It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said."
Comment: as weird as usual, but in our larger reality we don't experience it. Yet it is the basis of the universe.
Quantum weirdness: two realities at the same time
QUOTE: "'It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
DAVID: as weird as usual, but in our larger reality we don't experience it. Yet it is the basis of the universe.
I think we experience it in our larger reality as well. Books, films, scenes, situations, events must all have an objective reality of their own, but no two observers will interpret them in exactly the same way, although barring gross factual errors, their interpretations may still fit in with the reality they have observed.
Quantum weirdness: two realities at the same time
by David Turell , Monday, March 25, 2019, 14:15 (1860 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "'It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.
DAVID: as weird as usual, but in our larger reality we don't experience it. Yet it is the basis of the universe.
dhw: I think we experience it in our larger reality as well. Books, films, scenes, situations, events must all have an objective reality of their own, but no two observers will interpret them in exactly the same way, although barring gross factual errors, their interpretations may still fit in with the reality they have observed.
Excellent point from an excellent author.
Quantum weirdness: entanglement study wins Nobel
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 23:18 (549 days ago) @ David Turell
Just this year Bell's inequality proven:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-beauty-at-the-heart-of-a-spooky-mystery/...
"For decades, the debate over entanglement was seen as purely philosophical, that is, experimentally unresolvable. Then in 1964, John Bell presented a mathematical argument that turned philosophy into physics. If your model of entanglement is based on locality and realism, Bell showed, it will produce results that differ, statistically, from those of quantum mechanics. This difference is called Bell’s inequality.
"John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger put Bell’s theorem to the test, performing experiments on entangled photons and other particles. Their research has confirmed that the predictions of quantum mechanics hold up. The experiments dash the hopes of Einstein and others that causes and effects propagate in an orderly fashion, and that things have specific properties when we don’t look at them.
"John Bell died in 1990, too early to see his ideas fully vindicated—or to share the Nobel Prize, which is not given posthumously. But he left behind a collection of influential papers, collected under the title Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Ironically, quantum theorists cite Bell’s utterances like scripture, even though his own views seem fluid, unsettled, riddled with self-doubt. He even disses his own inequality theorem, suggesting that “what is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination.” Bell’s theorem is an impossibility proof.
***
"Bell once said that quantum mechanics “carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction.” He, like Einstein, seemed to hope that quantum mechanics would yield to a more sensible theory, ideally one that restores locality, realism and certainty to physics. My guess is that if we find such a theory, it will eventually turn out to be mysterious in its own way. The mystery might be unlike our quantum mystery, but it will still be a mystery, which cuts through our habituation and forces us to pay attention to the weird, weird world."
Comment: I agree. I think the weirdness is real and here to stay.
Quantum weirdness: tunnelling measured
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 05, 2023, 01:18 (388 days ago) @ David Turell
A very difficult study achieved:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsltKdHNkTXkQWNZXZjgMvzTTh
"Now, in a new study published in Nature, scientists have managed to spot quantum tunneling in what classical physics would deem an impossible reaction between hydrogen molecules and deuterium ions—heavy, charged versions of hydrogen. This is the first time that researchers have managed to experimentally confirm a theoretical prediction about the rate of tunneling in a reaction involving ions. “Quantum mechanics in theory should be able to predict this [rate] very well,” says physicist Stephan Schlemmer of the University of Cologne in Germany, who was not involved in the study. “But nobody was sure whether this was really true.”
***
"The reaction between hydrogen gas and deuterium ions is simple enough that it’s possible to predict the reaction rate with quantum mechanics alone. That is why Wester’s team chose to study this reaction: the researchers could actually check theory against reality. In the reaction, a molecule of hydrogen gas collides with one deuterium ion to produce a hydrogen ion and a heavy, deuterium-containing hydrogen molecule. But when theoretical physicist Viatcheslav Kokoouline of the University of Central Florida and his colleagues crunched the numbers in 2018, they predicted a reaction rate that was hundreds of times lower than the upper-limit estimate that was previously measured by Wester’s team.
“'[The results] disagreed so much with the experiments, we didn’t want to publish,” Kokoouline says. Worried that they had made a mistake, he and his colleagues repeated their calculation using three different theoretical methods and got the same result. It was certainly possible that the calculations were wrong, but “we tried our best, and this is the number we [could] provide,” says Kokoouline’s former student Isaac Yuen, who is now a theoretical physicist at Kansas State University.
“'[The results] disagreed so much with the experiments, we didn’t want to publish,” Kokoouline says. Worried that they had made a mistake, he and his colleagues repeated their calculation using three different theoretical methods and got the same result. It was certainly possible that the calculations were wrong, but “we tried our best, and this is the number we [could] provide,” says Kokoouline’s former student Isaac Yuen, who is now a theoretical physicist at Kansas State University.
"The problem was the reaction’s extremely slow rate, which took the Innsbruck team about 15 years of troubleshooting and tinkering to finally measure accurately. To do it, the researchers trapped deuterium ions in a cage of electric fields, flushed them with hydrogen gas and cooled everything down to an extremely chilly 15 kelvins. At temperatures that cold, the hydrogen and deuterium lacked the energy to react without tunneling. After waiting for about 15 minutes, the scientists measured how many hydrogen ions had been produced to find the reaction rate.
***
"Tunneling reactions between ions such as this one are thought to be important for chemical synthesis in the diffuse, interstellar soup of ionized gas that provides the raw material for new star systems. Because the interstellar medium is so cold, classical reactions are very slow, but tunneling is more likely—particles move past each other more slowly at low temperatures, which ups the odds of tunneling.
***
Here on Earth, capturing this tiny tunneling rate for the first time shows that physicists are on the right track with their quantum molecular theories. And it provides a benchmark for testing future theoretical efforts to unite chemistry and quantum mechanics. “[In] our regular world of classical particles, reactions can be understood with some very simple concepts,” Schlemmer says. "But this tunneling is just a completely different world. And measurements like this open this world to us.'”
Comment: quantum world is weird as ever but becoming more well understood and useful. I still see quantum mechanics as the basis of the universe itself. To view it an old way: not turtles, but quantum activity all the way down.