Schrödinger's Cat

[Little Bang]

I don't think there is any line between the states of water. At 0 degees C just as many molecules freeze as thaw, at 100, just as many become a gas as become a liquid.

[DAK]

<I don't think there is any line between the states of water>

 

Hmmm, the cat IS dead and alive! LOL

 

DAK

[Qfwfq]

At 0 degees C just as many molecules freeze as thaw, at 100, just as many become a gas as become a liquid.

;)

You forgot to specify in equilibrium, apart from the fact that I find this a totally irrelevant point. Actually, that's were the latent heat comes in, which is a quite tangible line between ice, water and vapour.

[Qfwfq]

If you are proposing

<I don't think there is any line between the states of water>

 

Hmmm, the cat IS dead and alive!

as hypothesis and thesis of a theorem, I disagree. The line between the states of H2O has nothing to do with the cat being in a state such as

a|alive> + b|dead>

[Little Bang]

Quite true, Q

[Desaparecido]

"while it is empirical fact that consciousness has measurable effects on physical systems"

 

How do youknow that it is consciousness that affects, and not simply interference from your physical presence/interaction ?

 

Why don't we just put old Schrödinger in the box? Is Schrödinger both alive and dead? Isn't this just a philosophical relic of attributing some metaphysical qualities a human consciousness versus that of a feline?

 

questions, questions . . .

[DAK]

<The line between the states of H2O has nothing to do with the cat being in a state such as>

 

Since everything in the universe does 'have to do' with everything else, even a miniscule amount of truth in my statement is greater than the complete negation above.

 

Similarily you response to the other poster:

 

<I find this a totally irrelevant point. >

 

begs the question as to WHAT DO you find relevant. Negations based personal positionalities aren't as useful as attempting to shed even a miniscule amount of light on a difficult subject IMO

 

DAK

[Doctordick]

I think the implication in the cat experiment is that probability = reality. It's like saying that if you flip a coin and it falls where nobody can see it, it is both heads and tails until someone actually observes it. I believe truth and reality are objective and don't need human confirmation to exist, therefore the cat is either dead or alive, but not both, and whether anyone ever checks on the cat's health or not will not affect which it is.

I agree with you 100% and I believe the real central issue of the argument being presented is the fact that the scientists believe that Quantum Mechanics is real and the calculated probabilities are a consequence of that fact whereas I (and perhaps you) believe all we really know are our expectations. Since expectations can always be expressed in probabilistic terms, the belief that we understand reality is directly connected to our ability to judge those probabilities. I can show explicitly that a proper calculation of our expectations leads directly to Quantum Mechanics. So I think those probabilities which represent our most defendable expectations are our understanding of reality and Quantum Mechanics is nothing more than a decent way of estimating those probabilities.

Most people misunderstand what point Erwin Schrodinger was actually trying to make. His point was that the indeterminacy which is dominant at the quantum level (e.g. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) does *not* translate well into the macroscopic world. That's not to say that quantum uncertainty does not have macroscopic effects, but that the observational issues really don't apply directly.

Now I would very much argue with that statement. In fact, it is my opinion that it is the failure of the scientific community to take careful notice of that very issue which has created the current sad state of affairs (slightly flawed expression of Quantum Mechanics). As I said to Eduffy80911 above, "I can show explicitly that a proper calculation of our expectations leads directly to Quantum Mechanics." What is really interesting about my attack is that it yields a form of Quantum Mechanics which is totally consistent with Relativity. The word "totally" is there because my attack not only yields Dirac's equation as an approximation for special relativistic effects but also yields correct effects associated with general relativity.

The mind has really little to do with the actual event itself, except as a witness to such. The Double Slit experiments in themselves show how the wavefunction has the ability at times to have no solid defined path and yet, under other conditions it can display such. This all runs counter to the macroworld where everything is far more shall we say, without causing an arguement, deterministic and more exact. Somehow these two worlds unite. Somehow the random manages to generate the less random.

Let it all be absolutely random then do the expectation calculations correctly. You will find that there is no problem uniting "two worlds"; you will get exactly what we observe.

An example of a question that arose elsewhere, whether or not QM breaks macroscopic determinism:

Is there determinism at the microscopic level, or what kind is there and isn't there?

 

How about at the macroscopic level?

What would you say if I told you that determinism is a central element of explanation and not of reality at all? If we decide not to explain it, reality is nothing more than a collection of unrelated events in the past. Events which we cannot revisit to assure ourselves the description we are working with is correct (think about that one for a moment).

The idea is that in the quantum world, only probabilities are legitimate predictors. There are too many unknowns to be sure if an event will occur or not. Looking at it doesn't make it happen, it just validates that it did happen.

Two comments here: the existence of all those unknowns must be taken into account and, secondly, we seldom experience any quanta mechanical events directly; their existence is proved by assumption of the correctness of a whole slue of deterministically connected phenomena (I think you should think about that one too).

The riddle is: where is there a demarcation between the one and the other type of situation?

And the correct answer is that there isn't any; not when the problem is analyzed correctly.

The argument still appears circular...

When you understand the big picture, you will discover that most arguments are pretty well circular and that is an interesting phenomena in itself.

So the Newtonians think everything is ice... Quantum mechanics is noting that touching the ice {melts it, and} somehow changes things... the mystic sees the world as humidity which condenses or/and hardens {manifests} when conditions are right.

I like your perspective. At least it seems to indicate an open mind.

...the observer IS the experiment. Buddhists and taoists should not have a problem with that, methinx. It's mostly westerners, in my experience, who seem to have an issue with it.

I don't!

We have free will, but only to the exent that we decide which reality we wish to travel.

Suppose we have "free will" to the extent of choosing our own interpretation of our experiences?

<We have free will, but only to the exent that we decide which reality we wish to travel.>

 

And perhaps the 'reality' is not 'out there', but inside. Two people doing the same thing have quite different experiences. As Dr. David Hawkins writes, truth is radically subjective.

We seem to agree on a lot of stuff.

Mojassty, there is another scenario that still fits the multiverse theory. Everything you see is an illusion created by your own consciousness and even Dr. Feynman hinted that it seemed strange that every time we needed a new particle to make things work researchers went out and found it.

Yes! And I wish the man had not died when he did. I think he and I could have communicated. I have the answer to his dilemma.

Did anyone ever explain what coherent linear superposition is?

If you don't know what a coherent linear superposition is, you do not understand Quantum Mechanics at all. You need to get any good introductory text on the subject and read it carefully. In a nut shell, a coherent linear superposition is the description of a wave function expressed as a sum of weighted eigensoluitions relevant to some specific measurement.

But while probability equations describe what appear to be random quantum level events, probability equations are not the events.

No, the events are the events; the probabilities give us the best expectation for the events.

So out of seemingly randomness the equation collapses why & how?

The collapse is nothing more than our statement that the probabilities are no longer relevant; we now know the result.

 

Have fun -- Dick -checked-

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[DAK]

<The collapse is nothing more than our statement that the probabilities are no longer relevant; we now know the result.>

 

Yes, sure, but like chaos theory finding patterns where previously none were thought to exist, there may also be factors pertaining to 'collapses' that 'science' is unaware.

 

I again recommend Dr. David Hawkins works as 'interesting' if nothing else. He sights H. Stapp quite a bit, who apparently has a new book out, but I"ve yet to get it.

 

DAK

[Little Bang]

You know that quantum probabilities make up the macro world and that the observer can collapse a wave function to make a quantum probability real so why wouldn't I think the two are related? Maybe I'm just too dense to under stand but to me if A = B and B = C then A = C.

[Little Bang]

I could not find any mention of a coherent linear superpositon.

 

From wikipedea: Quantum superposition is the application of the superposition principle to quantum mechanics. The superposition principle is addition of the amplitudes of waves from interference. In quantum mechanics it is the amplitudes of wavefunctions, or state vectors, that add. It occurs when an object simultaneously "possesses" two or more values for an observable quantity (e.g. the position or energy of a particle).

[DAK]

<and that the observer can collapse a wave function>

 

There seems to be some disagreement about that on the board, however your statement would certainly seem to support a lot of ancient Chinese medicinal {Qi-gong} practicers and their claims... as well as telepathy, etc no? Qi-gong theory [as well as other mystic teachings] states that thoughts or intentions are energy packets just like every other 'thing'. Prayer would come under this, although the Qi-Gong masters supposedly worked on techniques for thousands of years to perfect various "supernatural" talents... they don't call them such of course.

 

DAK

[Little Bang]

If there is disagreement that the wave function collapses when the observer looks then those who disagree are reading different books on quantum theory than I am.

[Qfwfq]

Welcome to Hypography Doctordick, but I would ask you to avoid wordings such as:

 

If you don't know what a coherent linear superposition is, you do not understand Quantum Mechanics at all.

when it is better to just say that the notion is fundamental to the topic and then give your definition or explanation of it.

 

I agree with you 100% and I believe the real central issue of the argument being presented is the fact that the scientists believe that Quantum Mechanics is real and the calculated probabilities are a consequence of that fact whereas I (and perhaps you) believe all we really know are our expectations. Since expectations can always be expressed in probabilistic terms, the belief that we understand reality is directly connected to our ability to judge those probabilities.

How do you define "our expectations"? I'm otherwise unable to judge this pov that you voice.

 

Do you therefore hold QM as not being real? In what sense? Perhaps you're hinting at Bell's theorem? If so, I disagree with your wording.

 

I can show explicitly that a proper calculation of our expectations leads directly to Quantum Mechanics.

What is really interesting about my attack is that it yields a form of Quantum Mechanics which is totally consistent with Relativity. The word "totally" is there because my attack not only yields Dirac's equation as an approximation for special relativistic effects but also yields correct effects associated with general relativity.

If all this is true, I'm sure many people would like to see it. If you plan on giving any details and discussing it, please do so in another thread, as it would be somewhat off topic here.

 

What would you say if I told you that determinism is a central element of explanation and not of reality at all? If we decide not to explain it, reality is nothing more than a collection of unrelated events in the past. Events which we cannot revisit to assure ourselves the description we are working with is correct (think about that one for a moment).

If we decide not to explain it, what do we discuss? I've thought of these things often, for more than just a moment, without you telling me to.

 

we seldom experience any quanta mechanical events directly; their existence is proved by assumption of the correctness of a whole slue of deterministically connected phenomena (I think you should think about that one too).

It depends on what you mean by "directly". When a photon causes a pulse to travel the optic nerve to the occipital region of your brain, you might call that "a whole slue of deterministically connected phenomena", but you could hardly get much more direct than that except by being the GP in a neurophysiology lab! How directly is "directly"?

 

And the correct answer is that there isn't any; not when the problem is analyzed correctly.

You surprise me by claiming this, after having scolded another poster for not understanding the meaning of coherent linear superposition.

 

When you understand the big picture, you will discover that most arguments are pretty well circular and that is an interesting phenomena in itself.

The big picture can also be broken down to arguments that are not circular, and this can be very helpful in understanding the big picture. See etymology of 'analysis'.

 

The collapse is nothing more than our statement that the probabilities are no longer relevant; we now know the result.

If this is true, why can Bell's inequalities be violated? There has been much progress in closing the detection loophole and the comunication loophole.

[Qfwfq]

I could not find any mention of a coherent linear superpositon.

 

From wikipedea: Quantum superposition is the application of the superposition principle to quantum mechanics. The superposition principle is addition of the amplitudes of waves from interference. In quantum mechanics it is the amplitudes of wavefunctions, or state vectors, that add. It occurs when an object simultaneously "possesses" two or more values for an observable quantity (e.g. the position or energy of a particle).

Wiki isn't going much into the 'coherent' there. Try finding more about it. I would suggest starting from the Young double-slit interference experiment, but focussing on the importance of coherence.

 

If there is disagreement that the wave function collapses when the observer looks then those who disagree are reading different books on quantum theory than I am.

It also depends on what is meant by "when the observer looks". Does it mean "when a homo sapiens sapiens looks at the cat in the box" or does it mean when the detector triggers, or what?

[Little Bang]

Wiki isn't going much into the 'coherent' there. Try finding more about it. I would suggest starting from the Young double-slit interference experiment, but focussing on the importance of coherence.

 

It also depends on what is meant by "when the observer looks". Does it mean "when a homo sapiens sapiens looks at the cat in the box" or does it mean when the detector triggers, or what?

 

Q, that is a very good question and I don't have an answer.We can build a measurement device for making a measurement at a quantum level and claim that the device is what collapsed the wave function, but then how do we explain that two different observers can get different results using the same device?

 

And thank you for the Young experiment, I'll spend some time on it.

[jasonchild]

Q, that is a very good question and I don't have an answer.We can build a measurement device for making a measurement at a quantum level and claim that the device is what collapsed the wave function, but then how do we explain that two different observers can get different results using the same device?

 

And thank you for the Young experiment, I'll spend some time on it.

 

It occurs to me that the wavefunction itself is nothing more than the statical probability that a specific state will be recorded (in this case). Then as such it seems quite logical to me that if the device does indeed cause the collapse of the wavefunction (and the wavefunction is nothing more than probability) then two seperate observers "of the devices output" could indeed get diverging results.

 

Young's Double Slit Experiment:

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/light/node9.html

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html

http://members.tripod.com/~vsg/interfer.htm

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/