| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2006 11:48:25 AM |
| Object: |
Theory of consciousness determining reality |
Hi,
I would like to bring to your attention hopefully an intresting theory
for some of the readers of
this group it's a short read little more than 2 minutes for anyone with
a basic grasp of
quantum physics, a pdf of the theory can be downloaded from.
http://www.ariasoft.ie/ebooks.html
.
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
22 Apr 2006 01:09:59 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2006 09:48:25 -0700, wrote:
Hi,
I would like to bring to your attention hopefully an intresting theory
for some of the readers of
this group it's a short read little more than 2 minutes for anyone with
a basic grasp of
quantum physics, a pdf of the theory can be downloaded from.
http://www.ariasoft.ie/ebooks.html
=== Quote from the above link===
The rules of quantum
physics dictate that the cat is in a superposition of states,
both alive & dead until the box is opened & observed by
a conscious observer, this conscious observer by observ-
ing causes a "crystallizing of reality" which in quantum
physics is called the "collapse of the wave function".
=======================
That idea is now known to be wrong.
The current most widespread view is that the rest of reality is what
limits the wavefunction of any particular particle. Only those
possibilities are realized that are compatible with the possibilities
of the particles around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of
particles, the range of possibilities gets more and more limited,
until at the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
This approach is called "decoherence" and is explained in Colin
Bruce's book "Schrodinger's Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes
experimental evidence.
In this view, the wave functions of the atoms making up the cat would
be continuously localising as they interact with each other. So the
cat as a whole would never need to be in a superposition of states and
at all times would either be alive or dead, as common sense tells us.
====
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
22 Apr 2006 05:43:30 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006 09:48:25 -0700, wrote:
Hi,
I would like to bring to your attention hopefully an intresting theory
for some of the readers of
this group it's a short read little more than 2 minutes for anyone with
a basic grasp of
quantum physics, a pdf of the theory can be downloaded from.
http://www.ariasoft.ie/ebooks.html
=== Quote from the above link===
The rules of quantum
physics dictate that the cat is in a superposition of states,
both alive & dead until the box is opened & observed by
a conscious observer, this conscious observer by observ-
ing causes a "crystallizing of reality" which in quantum
physics is called the "collapse of the wave function".
=======================
That idea is now known to be wrong.
The current most widespread view is that the rest of reality is what
limits the wavefunction of any particular particle. Only those
possibilities are realized that are compatible with the possibilities
of the particles around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of
particles, the range of possibilities gets more and more limited,
until at the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
This approach is called "decoherence" and is explained in Colin
Bruce's book "Schrodinger's Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes
experimental evidence.
In this view, the wave functions of the atoms making up the cat would
be continuously localising as they interact with each other. So the
cat as a whole would never need to be in a superposition of states and
at all times would either be alive or dead, as common sense tells us.
====
The book you mentioned has this review at amazon.com:
"At long last, there is a sensible way to think about quantum
mechanics.
The new view abolishes the need to believe in randomness, long-range
spooky forces, or conscious observers with mysterious powers to
collapse cats into a state of life or death. But the new understanding
comes at a price: we must accept that we live in a multiverse wherein
countless versions of reality unfold side-by-side. The philosophical
and personal consequences of this state of affairs are awe-inspiring.
The new interpretation has allowed imaginative physicists to conceive
of wonderful new technologies: measuring devices that effectively
share information between worlds and computers that can borrow
the power of other worlds to perform calculations. Step by step, the
problems initially associated with the original many-worlds formulation
have been addressed and answered so that a clear but startling new
picture has emerged.
---------
How does the new Oxford Interpretation differ to the Many-World
Interpretation? What new insights does it offer that isn't mentioned
before?
Brit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
23 Apr 2006 03:13:12 PM |
|
|
On 22 Apr 2006 15:43:30 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
The current most widespread view is that the rest of reality is what
limits the wavefunction of any particular particle. Only those
possibilities are realized that are compatible with the possibilities
of the particles around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of
particles, the range of possibilities gets more and more limited,
until at the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
This approach is called "decoherence" and is explained in Colin
Bruce's book "Schrodinger's Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes
experimental evidence.
In this view, the wave functions of the atoms making up the cat would
be continuously localising as they interact with each other. So the
cat as a whole would never need to be in a superposition of states and
at all times would either be alive or dead, as common sense tells us.
====
The book you mentioned has this review at amazon.com:
"At long last, there is a sensible way to think about quantum
mechanics.
The new view abolishes the need to believe in randomness, long-range
spooky forces, or conscious observers with mysterious powers to
collapse cats into a state of life or death. But the new understanding
comes at a price: we must accept that we live in a multiverse wherein
countless versions of reality unfold side-by-side.
Thanks for that feedback.
I had been told the book explained decoherence, but having not seen it
myself I was not aware that it promoted the Many-Worlds
Interpretation.
I few years ago, I enjoyed reading about the MWI in David Deutsch's
"The Fabric of Reality", and I thought at the time it was much more
satisfactory than the Copenhagen Interpretation.
However, I subsequently discovered the ProWave Interpretation and
thought that made more sense.
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
While its an advanced technique, the Quantum State Diffusion approach
seems consistent with the ProWave Interpretation
Text only
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701024
Figures & less readible text
http://kh.bu.edu/qcl/pdf/gisin__n19971004746f.pdf
They both assert nonlocal realism.
In contrast I believe the Many-World Interpretion asserts local
realism. That is to say, the need for trillions of universes in the
MWI arises from the fact that its proponents don't like the idea of
nonlocality.
How does the new Oxford Interpretation differ to the Many-World
Interpretation? What new insights does it offer that isn't mentioned
before?
Unfortunately I have not read about it, so can't answer that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
23 Apr 2006 06:32:27 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 22 Apr 2006 15:43:30 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
The current most widespread view is that the rest of reality is what
limits the wavefunction of any particular particle. Only those
possibilities are realized that are compatible with the possibilities
of the particles around it. Once you get above a very tiny number of
particles, the range of possibilities gets more and more limited,
until at the macro level you get objects that are virtually unaffected
by "quantum uncertainty."
This approach is called "decoherence" and is explained in Colin
Bruce's book "Schrodinger's Rabbits" chapter 6, where he also quotes
experimental evidence.
In this view, the wave functions of the atoms making up the cat would
be continuously localising as they interact with each other. So the
cat as a whole would never need to be in a superposition of states and
at all times would either be alive or dead, as common sense tells us.
====
The book you mentioned has this review at amazon.com:
"At long last, there is a sensible way to think about quantum
mechanics.
The new view abolishes the need to believe in randomness, long-range
spooky forces, or conscious observers with mysterious powers to
collapse cats into a state of life or death. But the new understanding
comes at a price: we must accept that we live in a multiverse wherein
countless versions of reality unfold side-by-side.
Thanks for that feedback.
I had been told the book explained decoherence, but having not seen it
myself I was not aware that it promoted the Many-Worlds
Interpretation.
I think the Many World Interpretation is too extravagant and carry
a lot of mystical baggages.
I few years ago, I enjoyed reading about the MWI in David Deutsch's
"The Fabric of Reality", and I thought at the time it was much more
satisfactory than the Copenhagen Interpretation.
However, I subsequently discovered the ProWave Interpretation and
thought that made more sense.
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
But there is problem with the Prowave. How can you model it
in the photoelectric and compton scattering effect for example.
While its an advanced technique, the Quantum State Diffusion approach
seems consistent with the ProWave Interpretation
Text only
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701024
Figures & less readible text
http://kh.bu.edu/qcl/pdf/gisin__n19971004746f.pdf
But there are also problems with Quantum State Diffusion. QM
says probability only occurs from measurement.. but in QSD
or PSD, probability is the foundation of nature itself. But it
has conflict with other facts that I forget as I read about it
2 weeks ago.
They both assert nonlocal realism.
In contrast I believe the Many-World Interpretion asserts local
realism. That is to say, the need for trillions of universes in the
MWI arises from the fact that its proponents don't like the idea of
nonlocality.
How does the new Oxford Interpretation differ to the Many-World
Interpretation? What new insights does it offer that isn't mentioned
before?
Unfortunately I have not read about it, so can't answer that.
But until proven wrong. I think I'll get the book Schroedinger Rabbit
in my next book order batch.
Right now. I really want to know whether the mainstream QM
formalism or the deBroglie-Bohm formalism has more
theoretical support. In the latter, electron stays as electrons
when moving from source to detector in the double slit. In
the former. We can only calcuate the locations of them
at the detector thru the wave function. We are forbidden
to know what happens in between. For all we know, the
world may not even exist before measurement. It is
frustrating that we can't even know what happens to the
electron in between the source and detector with definite
result. The Prowave you like has problems in that how
can the wave conspire to localize into particle at the
point of interaction unless you admit the wave has
intelligence and has exotic mechanics and dynamics.
Brit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
23 Apr 2006 06:36:14 PM |
|
|
Oh I forgot (in reference to the above). If the electron remains
as electron particle between the source and detector of the
double slit. It also remains as electron particle in the nucleus.
But classicial electrodynamics says the configuration is not
stable because the electron as moving particle and charge
can radiate. So how did they deal with this constantly moving
electron particle around the nucleus in the deBroglie Bohm
Interpretation. What do you think (Surfer)?
Brit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
27 Apr 2006 06:13:37 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2006 16:36:14 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh I forgot (in reference to the above). If the electron remains
as electron particle between the source and detector of the
double slit. It also remains as electron particle in the nucleus.
But classicial electrodynamics says the configuration is not
stable because the electron as moving particle and charge
can radiate. So how did they deal with this constantly moving
electron particle around the nucleus in the deBroglie Bohm
Interpretation. What do you think (Surfer)?
Its not a problem because to quote from a paragraphs about Bohmian
Mechanics:
...."the theory assigns always a definite position in space to all
particles; in particular, macroscopic objects have definite
properties, and they are where we see them to be: this is how Bohmain
mechanics solves the measurement problem of quantum mechanics."
<snip>
...."the theory is predictively equivalent to standard Quantum
Mechanics concerning the positions of all the particles of the
universe."
The above are from pages 22/23
Dynamical Reduction Models
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302164
The reason is that although the equations of Bohmian Mechanics include
variables for particle position, the equations also contain
wavefunction terms. The latter ensure particle motion is consistent
with quantum mechanics, rather than with classical electrodynamics.
But the paper then goes on to say...
<<<<<<<<<<
However, one has to call attention to a peculiar aspect (shared by all
hidden variable theories) of Bohmian Mechanics, i.e. to its contextual
nature. Various authors [21, 22] have exhibited general proofs showing
that the very algebraic structure of quantum formalism implies that
any complete specification of the state of a system can assign, in
general, a definite truth value to most of the propositions concerning
its properties only with reference to a specified context. This means
that within such a framework, the most complete specification of the
state of an individual physical system is not sufficient, by itself,
to determine the outcome of a measurement process for most of the
observable quantities one can consider, but that such an outcome
depends from the overall factual situation. For instance within
Bohmian Mechanics, a system with a precise wavefunction and a precise
position, when subjected, e.g., to a measurement of its momentum, may
give one or the other of the outcomes compatible with its
wavefunction, depending on the specific apparatus one chooses to
perform the measurement.
This situation, which at first sight might be considered as puzzling,
in reality gives simply important indications about the ontology which
is appropriate for the theory. The way out derives from taking the
attitude that the only physical entities the theory is about are the
noncontextual ones. In Bohmian Mechanics the positions of the
particles play such a privileged role: they are the only non
contextual, objective, real variables (the “local beables” [23, 24])
of the theory 15 . What about the other observables? [20] “Properties
that are merely contextual are not properties at all; they do not
exist, and their failure to do so is in the strongest sense possible”.
A weakness, in our opinion, of the theory is that one can exhibit [25]
infinitely many inequivalent hidden variable theories — whose hidden
variables are the position of the particles of the universe —
different from Bohmian Mechanics. They are all perfectly consistent,
differing among themselves only for the trajectories they assign
to the particles.
Of course, this is not a mathematical fault of Bohmian Mechanics;
however, it casts some shadow over the “ontological” basic position of
the theory: that particles have always definite positions and follow
precise trajectories. If many inequivalent Bohmian–like theories
assigning different trajectories to particles are possible, which
trajectories are the correct ones? Is there a criterion to choose only
one among them?
Some authors [26] have tried to identify such criterion with the so
called “request of compoundational invariance” of the theory. However,
such a request does not seem logically necessary 16 .
So Bohmian Mechanics has merits. It would be interesting to see some
simulated particle trajectories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brit" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
27 Apr 2006 08:49:01 PM |
|
|
Surfer wrote:
On 23 Apr 2006 16:36:14 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh I forgot (in reference to the above). If the electron remains
as electron particle between the source and detector of the
double slit. It also remains as electron particle in the nucleus.
But classicial electrodynamics says the configuration is not
stable because the electron as moving particle and charge
can radiate. So how did they deal with this constantly moving
electron particle around the nucleus in the deBroglie Bohm
Interpretation. What do you think (Surfer)?
Its not a problem because to quote from a paragraphs about Bohmian
Mechanics:
..."the theory assigns always a definite position in space to all
particles; in particular, macroscopic objects have definite
properties, and they are where we see them to be: this is how Bohmain
mechanics solves the measurement problem of quantum mechanics."
<snip>
..."the theory is predictively equivalent to standard Quantum
Mechanics concerning the positions of all the particles of the
universe."
The above are from pages 22/23
Dynamical Reduction Models
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302164
Thanks. I'll study the 165 page paper you gave above for a week.
I was looking for Dynamica Reduction Models references before
but couldn't find them. Keep the interesting papers coming.
Remember that within the mystery of quantum measurement
lies the key to the secret of the universe.
Brit
The reason is that although the equations of Bohmian Mechanics include
variables for particle position, the equations also contain
wavefunction terms. The latter ensure particle motion is consistent
with quantum mechanics, rather than with classical electrodynamics.
But the paper then goes on to say...
<<<<<<<<<<
However, one has to call attention to a peculiar aspect (shared by all
hidden variable theories) of Bohmian Mechanics, i.e. to its contextual
nature. Various authors [21, 22] have exhibited general proofs showing
that the very algebraic structure of quantum formalism implies that
any complete specification of the state of a system can assign, in
general, a definite truth value to most of the propositions concerning
its properties only with reference to a specified context. This means
that within such a framework, the most complete specification of the
state of an individual physical system is not sufficient, by itself,
to determine the outcome of a measurement process for most of the
observable quantities one can consider, but that such an outcome
depends from the overall factual situation. For instance within
Bohmian Mechanics, a system with a precise wavefunction and a precise
position, when subjected, e.g., to a measurement of its momentum, may
give one or the other of the outcomes compatible with its
wavefunction, depending on the specific apparatus one chooses to
perform the measurement.
This situation, which at first sight might be considered as puzzling,
in reality gives simply important indications about the ontology which
is appropriate for the theory. The way out derives from taking the
attitude that the only physical entities the theory is about are the
noncontextual ones. In Bohmian Mechanics the positions of the
particles play such a privileged role: they are the only non
contextual, objective, real variables (the "local beables" [23, 24])
of the theory 15 . What about the other observables? [20] "Properties
that are merely contextual are not properties at all; they do not
exist, and their failure to do so is in the strongest sense possible".
A weakness, in our opinion, of the theory is that one can exhibit [25]
infinitely many inequivalent hidden variable theories - whose hidden
variables are the position of the particles of the universe -
different from Bohmian Mechanics. They are all perfectly consistent,
differing among themselves only for the trajectories they assign
to the particles.
Of course, this is not a mathematical fault of Bohmian Mechanics;
however, it casts some shadow over the "ontological" basic position of
the theory: that particles have always definite positions and follow
precise trajectories. If many inequivalent Bohmian-like theories
assigning different trajectories to particles are possible, which
trajectories are the correct ones? Is there a criterion to choose only
one among them?
Some authors [26] have tried to identify such criterion with the so
called "request of compoundational invariance" of the theory. However,
such a request does not seem logically necessary 16 .
So Bohmian Mechanics has merits. It would be interesting to see some
simulated particle trajectories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
25 Apr 2006 10:29:41 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2006 16:32:27 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
However, I subsequently discovered the ProWave Interpretation and
thought that made more sense.
http://www.quantummatter.com/wave.html
But there is problem with the Prowave. How can you model it
in the photoelectric and compton scattering effect for example.
The ProWave Interpretation would model scattering using the same
mathematics as standard quantum theory so would get the same results.
But the interpretation of what the maths represents would differ from
the other interpretations.
The following is extracted from:
http://www.quantummatter.com/node4.html
<<<<<
Let's start with a list of the assumptions made in the ProWave
Interpretation:
1. Elementary quanta of matter and energy exist as their wavelike
behavior suggests (wave packets), always.
2. Their time evolution is described by the Schrödinger equation (or
better yet, by the Heisenberg equation of motion for the density
operator).
3. Energy transfer, in quantum amounts, takes place locally. Thus,
when a photon is absorbed and measured, its energy is transferred at
only one point in space (Basically, this is only a defining property
of "quantum'').
By assumption 3, during scattering experiments, photons and electrons
would be expected to exhibit point particle behaviour, because when
energy was transferred from one wave packet to another, it would be at
"only one point in space" (though I expect this could be a "small
region" rather than infinitesimal point)
Further down the page the author writes:
<<<<<
As the quanta propagate and interact with the macroworld, two separate
types of interactions occur. The first is defined as a partial
interaction: This interaction reorganizes or redirects the
wavefunction designated by a unitary transformation matrix. Examples
of such are beamsplitters and magnetic fields. The other type of
interaction is defined as a complete interaction: This is designated
by the destruction (and creation) of a quantum of energy, for example
a bound electron absorbing a photon.
Before applying ProWave to the experiments described earlier, here
it's quickly shown that ProWave can add insight into how a cloud
chamber can measure the particle-like nature of matter waves. As, say,
an electron traverses its ``path'' in the cloud material, it is
constantly being forced into localized positions by partial
interactions with the material. Thus, the matter wave is being
reorganized constantly and not really allowed to diffract much before
collapsing repeatedly. The result is a clearly drawn path that was
previously believed that only a particle could make.
The Prowave you like has problems in that how
can the wave conspire to localize into particle at the
point of interaction unless you admit the wave has
intelligence and has exotic mechanics and dynamics.
The following paper proposes a way for this to occur.
"Localisation of a wave-function by superposition of different
histories"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506077
In particular see Section 2.3 "Repeated collisions of two molecules".
Regards
.
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of consciousness determining reality |
26 Apr 2006 03:48:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:59:41 +0930, Surfer <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2006 16:32:27 -0700, "Brit" <britnevada@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Prowave you like has problems in that how
can the wave conspire to localize into particle at the
point of interaction unless you admit the wave has
intelligence and has exotic mechanics and dynamics.
The following paper proposes a way for this to occur.
"Localisation of a wave-function by superposition of different
histories"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506077
One of the interesting things about this paper is that the proposed
mechanism does not require any new physics. If the paper is correct,
then the localization can be fully accounted for by standard QM.
But I have thought of a question. When localization of a wave-function
occurs in practice, should we assume that it always produces one and
only one particle?
Given the complexity of localisation, I suspect that once in a while
the process might go haywire so as to sometimes produce more than one
particle or in other cases no particle at all.
If this occured during an experiment, it could cause a particle to
fail to arrive at a detector or for extra particles to appear in the
apparatus.
However, occasional disappearance of particles or appearance of extra
ones during experiments, could be expected to happen anyway due to
such things as "quantum tunnelling" or "background radiation".
So I wonder if "malfunctions" of localization could be distinguished.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
