Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

One conclusion of the double slit experiment is that reality is determined by an observer.   What is truly perplexing is that two observers can determine two irreconcilable realities that are both equally valid.  There are three things we need to understand from this:

1.        Reality in our space-time is observer determined.

2.       Every observer lives in a bubble of its own reality all of which can be equalling valid.

There is a higher level of reality where the double slit experiment is reconciled.  For example, imagine two separate circles in two dimensions.   Circle “A” represents the particle reality.  Circle “B” represents the wave reality.  In two dimensions each circle is exclusive of the other.  But if a 3rd dimension is added then each circle can become a cross-section slice of a 3-dimensional donut.  Adding dimensions tends to resolve irreconcilable realities – and we are living in a subset of a much greater reality.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

One conclusion of the double slit experiment is that reality is determined by an observer.   What is truly perplexing is that two observers can determine two irreconcilable realities that are both equally valid.  There are three things we need to understand from this:

1.        Reality in our space-time is observer determined.

2.       Every observer lives in a bubble of its own reality all of which can be equalling valid.

There is a higher level of reality where the double slit experiment is reconciled.  For example, imagine two separate circles in two dimensions.   Circle “A” represents the particle reality.  Circle “B” represents the wave reality.  In two dimensions each circle is exclusive of the other.  But if a 3rd dimension is added then each circle can become a cross-section slice of a 3-dimensional donut.  Adding dimensions tends to resolve irreconcilable realities – and we are living in a subset of a much greater reality.   

The double slit experiment no more concludes that "reality" is determined by an "observer" than any philosophical argument - Berkeley etc.

 

Wavefunction "collapse" is generally considered to be due to interaction, i.e. a change in the state of the system, not to "observation". When the early writings speak of the act of "observation", they really mean "measurement", which means interaction of the system with a detector.

 

The notion that observation plays a role leads to absurdities. Who or what counts as an observer? Suppose a cat watches the experiment. Is it an observer? What about a goldfish?  It is useful to have a model of physics according to which nature supposedly behaves differently, when the experimenter goes to get a cup of coffee?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The double slit experiment no more concludes that "reality" is determined by an "observer" than any philosophical argument - Berkeley etc.

 

Wavefunction "collapse" is generally considered to be due to interaction, i.e. a change in the state of the system, not to "observation". When the early writings speak of the act of "observation", they really mean "measurement", which means interaction of the system with a detector.

 

The notion that observation plays a role leads to absurdities. Who or what counts as an observer? Suppose a cat watches the experiment. Is it an observer? What about a goldfish?  It is useful to have a model of physics according to which nature supposedly behaves differently, when the experimenter goes to get a cup of coffee?   

I can see the validity of your observations here . . . but there are other equally valid truths that contradict your exclusive worldview.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not expressing a worldview. I am just trying to keep any references to science more or less in line with current thinking, to the best of my ability.  

The phrase "current thinking"  seems to imply the validity of your views are time-dependent.  What if I assume we are living in the future when these views are considered as silly as we now consider some past opinions.  That being the case can you give me a reason why I should take you seriously now? 

Edited by Dennisprime
Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "current thinking"  seems to imply the validity of your views are time-dependent.  What if I assume we are living in the future when these views are considered as silly as we now consider some past opinions.  That being the case can you give me a reason why I should take you seriously now? 

OK, so you think the fact that scientific understanding changes with time invalidates it. Interesting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The double slit experiment no more concludes that "reality" is determined by an "observer" than any philosophical argument - Berkeley etc.

 

Wavefunction "collapse" is generally considered to be due to interaction, i.e. a change in the state of the system, not to "observation". When the early writings speak of the act of "observation", they really mean "measurement", which means interaction of the system with a detector.

This is a common misconception but an an annoying one because it's been irrefutably shown by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and others that the act of measurement is in no way responsible for collapsing the wave function. It makes sense in that in order to measure something you have to interact with it, but it's been shown that it's not what collapses the wave function so it doesn't matter how much sense it makes.

 

The notion that observation plays a role leads to absurdities. Who or what counts as an observer? Suppose a cat watches the experiment. Is it an observer? What about a goldfish?  It is useful to have a model of physics according to which nature supposedly behaves differently, when the experimenter goes to get a cup of coffee?   

It's not the act of observation either. It's whether or not the measurement can be known. It's actually very simple, if the measurement is made but the data is erased then the wave function doesn't collapse but if the data is available then the wave function does collapse, whether or not an observer is involved. It's whether the result of the measurement itself has any measurable effect, if it makes a measurable difference to the system.

 

OK, so you think the fact that scientific understanding changes with time invalidates it. Interesting.  

The fact scientific understanding changes with time means that some of what is now considered scientifically sound will turn out to be wrong, I would have thought that was obvious rather than interesting. This applies doubly to QM being as interpretation based as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact scientific understanding changes with time means that some of what is now considered scientifically sound will turn out to be wrong, I would have thought that was obvious rather than interesting. This applies doubly to QM being as interpretation based as it is.

I may be splitting hairs, but I don't think the scientific understanding is invalidated until new knowledge is gained.  Until then, current understanding is the best we currently have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be splitting hairs, but I don't think the scientific understanding is invalidated until new knowledge is gained.  Until then, current understanding is the best we currently have.

Yes but the best we currently have is normally presented as if it was fact, even if it needs 98% added imaginary dark stuff. I have no doubt that some of what is now considered as scientifically sound won't be forever. The big bang is doomed, I never bought it and the evidence now is pilling up, old looking galaxies in a supposedly young universe and huge stars too early on. They're going to have to keep pushing it back further into the past until they finally face facts, tis and always was silly science.

 

Also it takes a while for new knowledge to filter down to actually being taught, there's new images showing that most stars are connected by dust filaments containing amino acids amoung other things for example. Science seems to ironically hate new discoveries, probably because of their attitude that almost everything is understood. They thought that 100 years ago and then they found QM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...