FQXi Community

@NatureNews

A couple of months ago we spoke with quantum physicists Martin Ringbauer and Alessandro Fedrizzi of the University of Queensland, in Australia, on the podcast, about their experiment looking into the nature of the wavefunction. Their results lend support (though not quite definitively) to “Psi-ontic models” that say that, if there’s an objective reality, then the wavefunction is real. Psi-ontic models include Many Worlds, Bohmian mechanics and collapse models. That’s as opposed to “Psi-epistemic models” that say that the wavefunction just reflects our ignorance about the state of reality. I recently wrote an article for Nature that rounds up various experiments—including that Australian one—that are trying to uncover quantum reality. The full article, “What is Really Real?” on Nature’s site, so please take a look. (The image is taken from Nature's twitter feed: @NatureNews.)

When I attended a quantum foundations meeting in Erice, Italy, sponsored by COST, last March, I was surprised to find that the participants were mainly split between Bohmians and Collapse Model fans. Anecdotally, I’d say that Many Worlders dominate FQXi meetings. I’ve already highlighted collapse models on the blog and podcast, but I wanted to take this chance to flag up a podcast special recorded in Erice with Shelly Goldstein of Rutgers University and Jean Bricmont of the Catholic University of Louvain, who explain what Bohmian mechanics is and present their case for why they believe that it makes the most sense — and talk about why they feel it hasn’t had a fair hearing over the years.

Free Podcast

Bohmian Rhapsody: Physicists Shelly Goldstein and Jean Bricmont discuss features of the deterministic alternative to standard quantum mechanics proposed by David Bohm. From the Quantum Foundations meeting in Erice, Italy, supported by COST.

LISTEN:

Go to full podcast

In the Nature article, I mention the oil droplet experiments that have been getting a lot of attention over the past couple of years because they appear to show droplets “walking” along an oil surface, guided by their own ripples, analogous to the predictions made by Bohmian mechanics. (See the “Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics" forum thread, suggested by John Merryman.)

But there were a couple of other tests to note, which didn’t make the final cut. Bricmont pointed me to the first, which was published in Science. Bohmian mechanics, unlike standard quantum theory, says that particles have definite locations, even before they are observed, and it makes predictions for the paths taken by these particles as they move through, for instance, the double slit experiment. In 2007, Howard Wiseman, a quantum physicist at Griffith University, came up with a way to sneakily track the paths taken by photons in a double-slit experiment using “weak measurements” that allow physicists to quickly peek at an experiment while it is in progress. This disturbs the photon’s location slightly, so no single measurement can indicate where the photon would have been, had it not been observed. But by repeating the test many times, it is possible to build up a statistical picture of the “classical trajectories” taken by photons through the apparatus, which is just what a team led by Aephraim Steinberg at the University of Toronto, Ontario, did, in 2011.

The paths they found tended to correspond with those calculated using the Bohm model, a similarity that Steinberg told me he found “thought-provoking”. The experiment, he said, “underscores the elegance of the Bohm model,” though he added that it does not serve as proof of the interpretation. That’s because the trajectories are not seen directly while the experiment is in progress, but inferred after the experiment has taken place and all the results are in. A Many-World’s fan could thus argue that the trajectories only represent where the particles would have been *if* they took classical trajectories, rather than showing the definite trajectories they actually took. Bricmont agrees that experiment doesn’t prove Bohmian mechanics, but feels that the similarities are striking enough that the results should inspire more physicists to take another look at Bohmian theory.

Owen Maroney, a physicist at Oxford University, also highlighted a paper by Samuel Colin and Antony Valentini at Clemson University in South Carolina, who last year analysed a modified version of the model and calculated that it would have led to a subtly different pattern of quantum fluctuations in the early universe than is predicted by conventional quantum theory and the Many-World’s interpretation (arXiv:1407.8262v1). These signatures could show up in measurements of the cosmic microwave background currently being made by the Planck satellite.

As I mention in the Nature story, there are hopes that it could be just a matter of months before an experiment is carried out that completely rules out Psi-epistemic models and favours Psi-ontic models. But even if that is successful, there is another quantum interpretation that I didn’t cover in the article that would not be affected one way or the other by such tests, even though it is not a Psi-ontic model: quantum Bayesianism (or QBism). This is a relatively recent model based on classical Bayesian probability theory that rejects the notion that the results of quantum experiments can directly access an external objective reality that is independent of the agent making the measurements. According to Q-Bists, the results of quantum measurements are intimately tied to the presence of an agent and serve to change the agent’s degree of belief about what their personal future experience will be.

I asked Ruediger Schack, a QBist at Royal Holloway University in London, about why QBism escapes. He explained that is because the definitions of Psi-epistemic and Psi-ontic — and the wavefunction reality tests — are valid within a specific framework, called an ontological model (by Nicholas Harrigan and FQXi’s Robert Spekkens). “In this framework, outcome probabilities of measurements are determined by some real property lambda. Such models used to be called hidden variable models,” said Schack. QBists, however, do not subscribe to this framework. The Copenhagen interpretation also lies outside this framework.

Maybe it’s time to do a survey. What’s your favourite quantum interpretation? And you think there will ever be a test that could help people choose between various interpretations? Could there be a test that would make you change your mind?

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

My interpretation isn't explicitly stated, but probably relates most closely to QBism. It is Max Planck's view: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." ~ Max Planck. I take "Observer" & "Consciousness" to be synonymous terms. In other words, the Observer/Observed distinction is, at root, false. Moreover Consciousness/Observer is not really multiple - e.g., Schrodinger: "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind [consciousness]...." Strictly speaking, physics investigates experience. The field of all experience is consciousness. Nature is, in essence, Consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

The comments on the Nature article are pretty comprehensive, some of them practically monographs... It seems better to start from one aspect of Matt Leifer's blog post, http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-i
nterpreted-statistically/, which offers three choices quite clearly (there might be more, but at least he's not reducing the choices to an excessively narrow dichotomy),

"1. Wavefunctions are epistemic and there is some underlying ontic state. Quantum mechanics is the statistical theory of these ontic states in analogy with Liouville mechanics.

2. Wavefunctions are epistemic, but there is no deeper underlying reality.

3. Wavefunctions are ontic."

As Matt puts it, ruling out #1 leaves us with #2 and #3 as choices, and it's hard to see any possible way to rule out #2, which was pretty much the party line for the first 50 years of QM, while leaving #3 intact. [I don't especially agree with Matt's overall discussion in that blog post, but that's another story.]

In any case, no-one seems to be clear enough which Hilbert space we're supposed to think holds the ontic Psi.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks William and Peter.

Peter, I also really like Matt Leifer's post, but I had some involved discussions with some QBists who weren't entirely happy with the wording for option 2 that "there is no deeper underlying reality" -- though they did agree that they should be categorised with Copenhagen, as far as these reality tests go.

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT

FWIW, Zeeya, I'd like to see this distinction between different Psi-epistemic writ large when this recent strand of discussion about QM is written about. I think Matt managed pretty well to make the distinction in a quite elementary way without getting enmeshed in too much detail.

QBism, very roughly as an intellectual descendent of Copenhagen, doesn't give much room for caviling at "there is no deeper underlying reality". What did they want instead? Another alternative, 2b, instead of going "deeper", "there is an emergent reality (that is as solid as our experience)"? But details are better than slogans.

report post as inappropriate

Member Matthew Saul Leifer replied on May. 29, 2015 @ 01:44 GMT

I used to be a QBist, but then I recovered.

QBists are sticklers for terminology, but I tried to phrase things in a way that your ordinary Daily Mail reading physicist on the street would understand. QBists think quantum mechanics can be understood in its own terms, as a theory for reasoning about the physical world in the face of uncertainty. In this sense, unlike the Bohmians, Everettians, spontaneous collapseans, etc. they are not looking for a deeper theory of reality in order to understand quantum theory. This is what option 2 means and I would have thought that was completely clear.

It should also be noted that QBism is not the only neo-Copenhagen interpretation on the table. In my review article, I listed about a dozen of them. Therefore, option 2 needs to be phrased in such a way that it captures Zeilinger's views, Richard Healey's views, Copenhagenish versions of consistent histories, etc. It is a bit rich to back off on the wording of option 2 just because the QBists don't like it, as if they had a monopoly on neo-Copenhagenism. You are always going to miss some subtle details when you try to make a broad strokes characterization, but if the correct interpretation of quantum theory really does turn on such semantic issues then I despair of the whole enterprise.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Merali,

Your article in Nature and your blog here provide a nice overview of the commonly discussed alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, there is a simple, logically consistent alternative that no one (except me) seems to consider. Specifically, if an electron or a photon is a spatially extended field whose integrity is maintained by a nonlinear self-interaction, it can move as a soliton-like wave while following a quasi-classical particle-like trajectory. There is no indeterminacy, no cat superposition states, and no entanglement. Such a model predicts some experimental results quite different from orthodox QM. For example, the two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment is used, by Feynman and others, as a paradigm for quantum measurement. In the alternative wave-dynamical model, rotation of the second magnetic polarizer will lead, not to a random dispersion of results due to Hilbert-space projection, but rather to a deterministic adiabatic rotation of the polarized state. This experiment has never actually been reported, although it should be straightforward using modern atomic beam apparatus.

For further information, please see my FQXi essay.

Thank you,

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Alan, I'll take a look at your essay.

It's good to see this Zeeya..

I greatly enjoyed this summary and following the threads given, both here and at Nature. Plus I think after reading the above, I need to look at Alan's essay too. I have always thought there was something more to the wavefunction than strict probabilists will admit, but seeing evidence that constrains the psi-epistemic view is heartening.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Superpositions and wave functions are merely one way to interpret the Fourier Transforms at the heart of quantum theory. But another way to interpret them (as is common in communications theory) is as a tuned, parallel filter bank. When combined with "identical" particle/wave inputs and "magnitude detection", such a filter bank reduces to a histogrammer, which is why the whole procedure results in probability estimates - no superposition of wave functions required or desired.

Rob McEachern

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for this new article Zeeya. I also enjoyed reading your linked Nature article. I'd just like to address two quotes from that article "Quantum physics: What is really real?"

Quote: "Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney, who is himself a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, they have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows...

view entire post

Thank you for this new article Zeeya. I also enjoyed reading your linked Nature article. I'd just like to address two quotes from that article "Quantum physics: What is really real?"

Quote: "Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney, who is himself a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, they have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows particles and atoms to move in many directions at once, for example, or to spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously."

Direction and orientation are not innate properties or states of particles or other objects but a spatial judgement made relative to the observer or relative to other objects in the environment as observed by the observer. Without looking that judgement of direction or orientation can not be made. An object can be spinning both clockwise and anticlockwise without an imposed observer point of view as it could be measured at either pole, and util the measurement is made both possibilities are existent and equally likely to be found.( Peter Jackson has talked about there being no monopoles). Likewise un-watched a spinning falling coin doesn't have a singular state but is both heads and tails as no observer viewpoint has been imposed and no measurement protocol has been imposed to constrain the output to just one of the two equally existing states. Also the states are not independently fluctuating over time but are bound to the substantial object itself, which is the carrier.

Quote ".....the strikingly different properties of small and large objects. “Why electrons and atoms can be in two different places at the same time, but tables, chairs, people and cats can't,”says Angelo Bassi......"

At the same time according to whom? Where something is deemed to be depends upon the perspective of the observer. Without an observer perspective who is to say where something is? Lets consider orientation of a macroscopic object. To make it easy to describe lets imagine a suspended beach ball with a pattern that is different all over. Lets put it in a white all over photographic studio where there are no other objects from which to give relative orientation. Prior to imposing an observers viewpoint the ball object does not have a singular orientation but might be described as equally having all orientations that might be observed. When the observer looks he receives sensory data unique to his particular location from which a (seen) manifestation of the ball is fabricated containing only a sub set of the potential sensory data in the environment. The emergent output reality has just the one orientation because of that. The orientation of the emanation is the outcome of the relationship of the observer to the object and not an intrinsic property or unique state of the object itself.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 29, 2015 @ 08:10 GMT

I should have said - Also the potential states are not independently fluctuating over time but are bound to the substantial object itself, which is the carrier. It's not quite correct to imagine the unique states existing or being an attribute the object prior to observation or measurement protocol. Take for example clockwise and anti clockwise spin. It is the rotation that is "bound to" the object but whether it is clockwise or anticlockwise depends upon how it is measured, the relationship to the apparatus or how it is observed, the relationship to the observer. I'm thinking that all of the possible outcomes are potential of the object, as it could be observed in many different ways but a particular state is only formed at measurement when the possibilities are constrained by the apparatus, measurement protocol or observer vantage point. Think of how many different ways the suspended beach ball might be observed prior to one observer stating its orientation.

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya,

First. let me thank you and congratulate you for staying dedicated to the deepest foundational issues. You never fail to bring focus to the big picture.

You got Shelly Goldstein to set it up perfectly right from the start. Indeed, what is left of physics, in a theory with so 'complacent' a view toward space and time?

"These axioms, which are about measurement and...

view entire post

Zeeya,

First. let me thank you and congratulate you for staying dedicated to the deepest foundational issues. You never fail to bring focus to the big picture.

You got Shelly Goldstein to set it up perfectly right from the start. Indeed, what is left of physics, in a theory with so 'complacent' a view toward space and time?

"These axioms, which are about measurement and observation ... should be derivable from something which doesn't refer to measurement or observation."

If quantum theorists -- (as contrasted to those practicing the science of quantum mechanics, and developing sub-theories within that science) -- want a reality-based theory, they want the impossible. That is, just as one cannot perform the Schrodinger's Cat experiment in finite time by placing a dead cat in the box, one cannot demarcate conventional quantum theory from metaphysical assumptions of probability. It isn't hard to prove the correlation between a signal in my brain and the motion of my fingers on the keyboard -- event by event, the causal transformation from chemical to electrical to mechanical energy is complete. With probability 1.

It also isn't hard to show that disrupting the process at some point in the transformation changes the probability for what might have happened were the system left undisturbed, to some number in the closed interval [0,1]. All quantum theory really predicts, is the probabilities of probability.

Some prominent physicists, as a result, want to give up realism altogether. Which seems to me very much like Einstein's observation, " ... an attempt to breathe in empty space."

A reality-based theory has to be mathematically complete -- to a certainty that we are describing nature objectively, in situ, and not creating a physical world based on our beliefs in a fundamental randomness. Are my finger motions across the keyoard random? (Oh shut up, I know some think so. :-) )

Point is, though, as Goldstein makes clear, we are about analyzing motion and changes in motion, not the probability that motion exists.

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on May. 29, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT

Tom,

The reason why axioms about measurement and observation cannot be derived solely "from something which doesn't refer to measurement or observation." is because sophisticated observers respond symbolically, rather than physically, to their physical inputs. Hence, knowing the physics about what is being observed, is not sufficient to determine how such observers will behave towards such observables.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 29, 2015 @ 23:25 GMT

Rob, that would be a a physical axiom then, wouldn't it?

"Axiom: Sophisticated observers possess absolute free will."

What is a sophisticated observer? What demarcates a sophisticated observer from an unsophisticated (i.e., unconscious) observer?

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on May. 30, 2015 @ 13:11 GMT

No free will or consciousness is required. A sophisticated observer is anything that can respond symbolically, rather than just physically. For example, a virus does that when it uses a DNA code. In different species, identical gene codes specify non-identical proteins to be produced.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

Identified states are product of relationships of observer to the source Object observed or likewise relationship of apparatus to the observed; that constrains the possible outcomes into one unique observable state.

A horizontal arrow (substantial object) is pointing both left and right as it may be viewed from either side. Only when observation is made is an emergent reality formed from...

view entire post

Identified states are product of relationships of observer to the source Object observed or likewise relationship of apparatus to the observed; that constrains the possible outcomes into one unique observable state.

A horizontal arrow (substantial object) is pointing both left and right as it may be viewed from either side. Only when observation is made is an emergent reality formed from the subset of received data in which the arrow has a limited fixed state of just one of the two direction states. Whether the arrow points up or down likewise depends upon the observer orientation (assuming there are no other objects in the environment, or gravity, from which to make the judgement.) Cups, actualized substantial objects, are both concave and convex. The manifestation of a cup produced by an observer from the sub set of EM data received is only ever concave or convex. Objects that are rotating rotate both clockwise and anticlockwise, without an observer viewpoint being imposed. The spinning object if it is not halted by measurement could be viewed with opposite spin by looking at the other end. For a moving substantial object all directions of motion relative to an observer are potentially valid until one observer viewpoint is imposed. The direction an object is moving in, left or right, up or down, away or towards depends upon how the observer is situated relative to the observed object. Whether EM radiation is considered to be horizontally or vertically polarized depends upon the position in which the observer is oriented and thus the position of the polarizer relative to him not a unique condition of the light.

This is different from saying objects do not have positions and orientations and directions of motion relative to the rest of the matter in the Object universe. The problem arises from judging the state observed or measured to be a unique attribute rather than a subjective judgement relative to the position and orientation of the apparatus or observer.

view post as summary

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 29, 2015 @ 23:04 GMT

Upon observation or measurement a limited sub set of total data is selected or a singular measure is made from which one unique state is the output (emergent )reality. This is a switch from considering all of the possibilities that might have been observed to considering only the one state output.If all of the possibilities were represented by a wave function the wave function representation...

view entire post

Upon observation or measurement a limited sub set of total data is selected or a singular measure is made from which one unique state is the output (emergent )reality. This is a switch from considering all of the possibilities that might have been observed to considering only the one state output.If all of the possibilities were represented by a wave function the wave function representation ceases to be useful for describing the reality that is seen to exist post measurement or observation. If it is acknowledged that all of the different possibilities belonged to the foundational Source reality, as it could have provided any of the possible outcomes, then it is a switching from considering Foundational Object reality to considering emergent Image reality (the output of processing sensory data that has been received directly or indirectly obtained via some kind of apparatus or measurement protocol.) Crossing the reality interface from unseen foundational Object reality to seen emergent Image reality.

Is it necessary to imagine that the possible outcomes not formed into the emergent reality all become part of alternative universes? Certainly not. They are still possible descriptions of the state of the Source object unless it is destroyed or the Source object is constrained so as to disable the other possibilities. Seeing a cup as concave does not mean another you is seeing it convex in another universe; but the possibility remains that it be seen so by another observer within the same Object universe. A flatmate standing on his head can form an emergent image reality in which the cup is seen to be convex only. Both alternative Image realities existing within the same Object universe. The sensory output manifestations seen by the observers do not alter the source object itself. The object and associated possibilities do not 'collapse' but just cease to be part of the consideration of what exists. As does a mathematical representation of possibilities pre-measurement.

At the very small scales measurement often are destructive or interfere with objects to alter their behaviour and thus outcomes. This does not mean other possibilities must belong to other universes. They did belong to our own and would still if not for the interference of measurement but cease to be relevant once a fixed state observable is formed.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 30, 2015 @ 04:50 GMT

Quantum experiment outcomes are probabilistic because starting states are unknown. And being unknown the state from all "viewpoints" is equally valid and likelihood of each state being detected can be given as a probability.

If a falling spinning coin is observed, filmed, from a particular viewpoint a starting state can be assigned to it from that viewpoint, and its non random motion over time can be used to calculate a certain (knowable) output state. Now without looking no starting state can be assigned as no singular viewpoint has been imposed. Even if the non random motion was precisely known the output could not be known with certainty without a starting state.

The output thus appears only to follow the rules of probability. This does not mean that the unseen reality is only probabilistic. The coin and associated states are evolving deterministically according to the coins momenta and effect of gravity (but for all potential viewpoints simultaneously.)

In order to have deterministic physics, rather than just probabilistic physics, occurring in the unseen reality all that is required is unseen objects obeying the deterministic laws of physics to which all of the possible states that might be observed can be assigned. Rather than just disembodied states in superposition in a mathematical space that only become real upon observation. The act of observation is forming a different kind of reality from the subset of data obtained. Which is a limited fixed state emergent reality. Rather than the absolute state of an unobserved object (at any scale) which is in all of the states that it could potentially be observed in, within the foundational Object reality.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Interpretation of a quantum wavefunction is a philosophical goal and is therefore not necessarily a physically realizable goal. There are no experiments that explain why the quantum universe is the way that it is…quantum is simply the way the universe is. Until science gets a quantum gravity, these kinds of interpretation issues will persist.

The fundamental problem is that mainstream...

view entire post

Interpretation of a quantum wavefunction is a philosophical goal and is therefore not necessarily a physically realizable goal. There are no experiments that explain why the quantum universe is the way that it is…quantum is simply the way the universe is. Until science gets a quantum gravity, these kinds of interpretation issues will persist.

The fundamental problem is that mainstream science has two rather incommensurate action principles; gravity and quantum. The incommensurability of gravity and quantum action means that for the same object action, gravity can predict a much different future compared with quantum. Since the scales of gravity and charge forces are so vastly different, 1e-39, it is possible to do any number of experiments with the same object that are perfectly compatible with either gravity or charge actions to a very high precision. However, there are no measurements that will show precision to 1e-39 nor are there ever likely to be any such measurements.

All that we can ever know about the world is what we sense and there is only one thing that is absolutely certain; we do not sense space but are nevertheless certain that space exists. What we sense are object time delays from other objects and their backgrounds and we also sense changes in objects and we put this sensory information together as changing time delays and say that that objects move through a lonely empty void of space.

Quantum motion begins quite deliberately and probabilistically upon excitation of a ground state of a quantum object. Excitation is itself a superposition of ground and excited states that oscillates and so is never certain which state you have and so quantum objects move or not based on quantum steps and fundamental probabilities. Although quantum motion also began when the universe began, each quantum excitation results in a likely but not certain future for each motion.

Relativistic gravity motion began when the universe began and objects have followed determinate paths ever since. Gravity objects all follow determinate geodesic paths through a very certain spacetime. There is no coherence among gravity objects and therefore there are no wavefunctions or entanglement, only mass and attraction. Although the chaos of complex motion precludes any precise predictions, the universe is in some certain and determinate state despite that chaos.

As a result, even though all gravity motion began when the universe began, due to chaos, gravity motion still just results in a fairly likely but not an absolutely certain future.

Thus we are back to where we began and both gravity and quantum end up with likely and not precise futures. Yet, while there are no observations that conflict with quantum action, there are a growing number of observations that conflict with gravity action.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 6, 2015 @ 16:15 GMT

The question of wavefunction collapse appears to actually address the root of the two very different notions of quantum space and motion versus the relativity gravity notions of space and motion. The existence of objects in space and the motion of objects through space are very intuitive notions and largely due to our experience with gravity.

It is therefore useful to reframe wavefunction...

view entire post

The question of wavefunction collapse appears to actually address the root of the two very different notions of quantum space and motion versus the relativity gravity notions of space and motion. The existence of objects in space and the motion of objects through space are very intuitive notions and largely due to our experience with gravity.

It is therefore useful to reframe wavefunction collapse question with the current incommensurate notions of space and motion between quantum and gravity. So much of wavefunction collapse is tied to quantum notions of space and motion, but the paradoxes seem to come from gravity notions of space and motion.

Since it is fairly certain that microscopic reality is quantum, matter does have phase as well as amplitude and coherent wave function superpositions necessarily exist for microscopic matter. What is less clear is whether macroscopic gravity objects retain much if any of that microscopic phase coherence.

The quantum notions of space and motion for quantum wavefunctions are the result of discrete exchanges of matter and that quantum notion is incommensurate with the gravity notions of space and motion for gravity objects. Relativistic gravity objects move in space along determinate and smooth and infinitely divisible geodesic paths and there is no role for phase coherence.

So questions of wavefunction collapse really just show the as yet incomplete notions of quantum gravity in science. Phase coherence among microscopic objects is a part of our quantum reality, and so the cat is indeed both alive and dead, but only for an incredibly short time. In fact, all of the cat’s experiences involve superpositions of its quantum neural states since every action that the cat takes depends on the overlap of the two neural states of inaction and action.

Each neural action of the cat exists as a quantum superposition of inaction and action for some very short time and in fact all objects can exist as a superposition of two or more states or possible futures for some period. Typical decoherence times for macroscopic objects are quite short, but these neural superpositions reflect the various superpositions of body motion.

Experiments that show the coherence of objects under quantum gravity need to focus on measurements of matter and time, not of space and motion. The key to wavefunction collapse and quantum gravity is to simply accept space and motion as emerging notions and focus measurements on matter and time. Science has very precise time periods from both atomic clocks and millisecond pulsar clocks and also very precise measures of decays of those clock periods over time.

Science therefore needs correspondingly precise measurements of the mass and decay of the mass of objects to then demonstrate or falsify the same decays that science sees with millisecond pulsars. Science simply assumes that its clocks tick at a constant rate even though they really do not due to many effects, like changes in gravity.

The international prototype kilogram (IPK) has decayed over the last century consistent with millisecond pulsar decays, but the IPK decay is currently attributed to an as yet unknown artifact. The very precise mass measurements coming up in the LISA spacecraft at the Lagrange 1 point between the earth and sun should measure matter decay...or show that it does not decay as the IPK decays.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

At least part of the problem is not having acknowledged the relativity of measurement and perception at the very small scales of investigation . That the emergent reality post measurement can be a limited fixed state output relative to the orientation of the apparatus when actual measurement performed. The other possible states being relative to other orientations of observation not performed. So...

view entire post

At least part of the problem is not having acknowledged the relativity of measurement and perception at the very small scales of investigation . That the emergent reality post measurement can be a limited fixed state output relative to the orientation of the apparatus when actual measurement performed. The other possible states being relative to other orientations of observation not performed. So the state observed is not a unique attribute of the underlying reality but a particular viewpoint. Always one viewpoint out of the many possible giving a probabilistic distribution of outcomes. That is, only a partial viewpoint rather than complete knowledge. It is not showing that there is a purely probabilstic underlying reality. Deterministic processes that are occurring are not happening from one viewpoint alone but all viewpoints are equally valid.

At the same time there is also the idea that the way in which the 'macroscopic world' is perceived is how the world of macroscopic objects is, fundamentally. Stemming from Relativity. The belief that macroscopic objects (themselves) have limited fixed states. Rather, it is relative perception of an observer that is forming limited fixed state manifestations from limited subsets of EM data. The state of the manifestation is limited and fixed because the data set used to form it is limited and fixed. EM data reflected or emitted from absolute substantial Source objects provide to the environment potential sensory data that potentially gives all possible manifestations- as seen from all positions, distances and orientations. So one might say there is a super-position of states that might be observed pertaining to the Source object.

These two relections on the nature of unseen foundational reality and emergent seen reality, while not resolving all questions, do at least bring the seemingly strange nature of quantum physics and macroscopic physics closer together. Super-position of states is seen not to apply exclusively to very small entities but any unseen substantial entity; and singular unique states being a limited fixed sample, relative to the apparatus or observer, of the absolute reality. Indicative of the observer observed relationship not the obsever independent absolute reality.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 31, 2015 @ 04:00 GMT

Another part of the problem is treating scenarios, the outcome of which do not depend on position of orientation of observation, in the same way as those that do. Whether a radioactive particle has decayed or not is not a matter of the relationship between object and observer (/apparatus), position or orientation. It is a change to the substantial source object itself.

This makes the Schrodinger cat analogy not representative of real superposition of states in founadational reality. That term superposition of states can be used to describe what exist in foundational reality, the potential of a source entity to give all possible observed outcomes eg having the potential to be observed as rotating clockwise and to be observed as rotating anticlockwise. The singular unique states do not exist alone unobserved but are formed by the measurement or observation .

The probabilistic nature of radioactive decay is not the same thing as the probabilistic outcomes obtained by measurement or observation alone of non radioactive entities. Outcomes that are one out of two or more possible 'viewpoint' states of an entity.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 1, 2015 @ 00:13 GMT

Quote, "Crudely speaking," says Fedrizzi, "in a psi-epistemic model the cat in the box is either alive or it's dead and we just don't know because the box is closed." But most psi-ontic models agree with the Copenhagen interpretation: until an observer opens the box and looks, the cat is both alive and dead." Quantum Physics:What is real? Zeeya Merali

If the analogy is flawed, in that the radioactive particle is not in a super position of states, of decayed and undecayed, then the analogy doesn't work to describe the Psi ontic viewpoints. The analogy has worked as intended to make them seem ridiculous but has also bamboozled everyone. Though my discussion may seem very naive I have tried to show how things can be in all states they may be found to have simultaneously so not arguing against super position of states itself as a concept.

Quote "Because radioactive decay is a quantum event, wrote Schrödinger, the rules of quantum theory state that, at the end of the hour, the wavefunction for the box's interior must be an equal mixture of live cat and dead cat".Quantum Physics:What is real? Zeeya Merali

This makes the assumption that all quantum events are of the same type. I would argue that the radioactive decay is not a simple change in situation of a quantum object. It is destruction of one object and creation of two new objects in foundational reality. The starting object (atom)and the two resulting objects (new atom and free particle) are not in a superposition of states. The new objects being different entities from the starting atom, that are also after the event two spatially separated objects. This is very different from a singular thing being all that it might be observed or measured to be. Such as the macroscopic examples given, or a non radioactive atom.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya, All,

Quote "Another set of reality-based models, devised in the 1980s, tries to explain the strikingly different properties of small and large objects. "Why electrons and atoms can be in two different places at the same time, but tables, chairs, people and cats can't." says Angelo Bassi.... "Quantum Physics:What is real? Zeeya Merali

Can atoms and electrons be in two places "at the same time " or is this, as I suspect, a product of the mathematical description- which is about probability densities and not substantial entities? Imagine there is a lion and there are two watering holes in his territory. A probability density map for a hot midday might give two equally likely locations for the lion. However that does not mean the lion is in two places at once.Is that anything like what is going on? Some kind of maths trickery exacerbated by translation into English, perhaps also aided by the desire to seem mysterious.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 1, 2015 @ 02:31 GMT

Zeeya, All,

there does also seem to be the "no no" of not comparing like with like going on.

Probability densities could be used for effective, safe locomotion in a macroscopic environment if the visual sense was not available. I know that at meal times my table occupies three times as much space at other times, having large extendable leaves. I might say the probability density of large tables is highest at meal times and so at such times a much larger safety zone around the table is required. I might provide a bowl of cookies for young guests. I will then know without visual information that the probability density of youngsters is highest in the vicinity of the cookie bowl. Isn't it these kinds of considerations that should be compared with the quantum scenarios and not vision?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

The measure of a state being ψ-epistiemic is the overlaps between the so called hidden variable λ \in Λ(φ) for the state φ relative to the state ψ,

∫ _{Λ(φ)}μ_ψ(λ)dλ = Ω[φ, ψ] \langle φ |ψ\rangle^2

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jun. 3, 2015 @ 19:46 GMT

The measure of a state being ψ-epistiemic is the overlaps between the so called hidden variable λ \in Λ(φ) for the state φ relative to the state ψ,

∫ _{Λ(φ)}μ_ψ(λ)dλ = Ω [φ, ψ] \langle φ |ψ\rangle^2

\le ∫ μ_ψ(λ)ξ_m(φ|λ)dλ = |\langle ψ|φ \rangle|^2

under the measurement m. The overlap function Ω[φ, ψ] = 1 for a ψ-epistemic interpretation. ...

view entire post

The measure of a state being ψ-epistiemic is the overlaps between the so called hidden variable λ \in Λ(φ) for the state φ relative to the state ψ,

∫ _{Λ(φ)}μ_ψ(λ)dλ = Ω [φ, ψ] \langle φ |ψ\rangle^2

\le ∫ μ_ψ(λ)ξ_m(φ|λ)dλ = |\langle ψ|φ \rangle|^2

under the measurement m. The overlap function Ω[φ, ψ] = 1 for a ψ-epistemic interpretation. The quantum state overlap \langle φ |ψ\rangle^2 would be accounted for entirely in terms of the overlap in the ontic states Λ_ψ ∩ Λ_φ. The Pusey-Barret-Rudolf derivation illustrates how it is not possible to have Ω[φ, ψ] = 1, and thus a ψ-epistemic interpretation is not consistent.

An example of a ψ-epistemic interpretation is the Copenhagen interpretation, which divides the world into two domains that are irreducibly quantum and classical. Examples of ψ-ontic interpretations are the deBroglie-Bohm and MWI interpretations. In this case the function Ω[φ, ψ] = 0, which indicates that Λ_ψ ∩ Λ_φ = ∅, which illustrates that no distinct pure states could produce the same parameter λ. The observation of one particular active channel in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation and the appearance of only one world observed in MWI is an illustration of this effect.

The difficulty in understanding this may lay in a number of sources. One could be that the set of λ-parameters Λ_ψ and Λ_φ for these respective states could obey a form of set theory that is non-standard. In other words there is no reason apriori to expect that

Λ_ψ ∩ (Λ_φ∪Λ_χ) = (Λ_ψ ∩ Λ_φ)∪(Λ_ψ ∩ Λ_χ),

For the right hand side could be true, but the left hand side could be false. If this extension to quantum logic is employed then the hidden variable λ becomes a type of quantum parameter that has not special hidden variable property.

If this is the case then Ω[φ, ψ] may not have any general value, 0 or 1, that makes QM either ψ-epistemic or ψ-ontic. Instead QM may preferentially behave more ψ-epistemic and less ψ-ontic, or less ψ-epistemic and more ψ-ontic depending upon the sort of proposition the analyst is trying to obtain from nature.

LC

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

All we know is the past. All we are is the present.

All we know is form/information. All we are is energy.

Energy is conserved, thus it is always present. Conversely, energy is only present, so since it can never fall into the past, it is conserved.

Form manifests as a confluence of energy. Be it energies interacting, energy moving from source to receiver. The act of measurement involves using one form of energy to interact with another. So it should be no wonder observation is part of the creation of form/information.

Are quanta energy, or are they form? We can't measure energy, only its form, so how do we know?

If energy didn't have form, would it exist?

Could form be measured, without energy?

In order to be determined, doesn't an event first have to occur? Events are first in the present, then in the past. The laws may determine a particular outcome, but as there is no way know the total input into an event prior to its occurrence, than how can the outcome be deterministic?

All our knowledge is momentarily stabilized energy. It only seems deterministic due to the inertia. The only thing truly deterministic about the future is that it will happen, because the energy is conserved.

Someday this "quantum weirdness" will seem about as normal as a round earth and those who thought it strange simply had illusions the earth is flat.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 04:27 GMT

Hi John,

good to see you back. You are the cheese to Lawrence's chalk : )

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 13:05 GMT

Georgina,

Thanks. That's a good analogy. I keep trying to argue math is the skeleton, the shell, or calcium on the bottom of the pot, when everything else has been boiled away. Not some primal seed from which reality springs, as it seems mathology thinks of it as.

The ontic is the energy and the epistemic is the form. The irony is we want to think of the real as something solid and anything changing as ephemeral. There are reality based measurements, not a measurement based reality. Thus they are fuzzy, not just probabilisitic. Even a moving car doesn't have an exact location.

I didn't have the energy and motivation to argue it in the contest though, as the structure and discipline of knowledge mitigates toward a mathematical universe. Definition is static.

Currently nursing a broken collar bone, so my reality is being more static than usual.

report post as inappropriate

How can we even talk about what 'exists', what's 'real' or what's 'physically out there', when words like 'exist' and 'physical' have no meaningful, non-circular definitions?

Ask someone what 'exist' means, and you'll probably elicit a slightly patronizing laugh. Persist, and you'll be offered something like 'it exists if it's there whether or not anyone observes it' which of course simply restates the question. It seems there's no possible reply that doesn't include some form of the verb 'to be'.

The meaning of 'physical' has been reduced to virtual emptiness. If pressed, we fall back in desperation to something like 'can't be further decomposed'.

These words are empty - there's nothing useful behind them. They seem to be placeholders for concepts we somehow wish we had.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 22:00 GMT

"I think, therefore I am." Descartes could get no further, in demonstrating the existence of anything, without introducing new (unstated) assumptions.

Physics is not really about what "is", but about how things, that we can observe behave. But the only things we can directly observe are our own thoughts. So physics presupposes that there are things external to ourselves, that cause us to wonder how such things may behave, such that they induce us to think about them, as we do. The color of things, is a classic example. Things seem to behave, as if they have color. Things seem to behave, as if they have wave-functions. They have neither. But they behave as if they do, because the only behavior we can observe, is how we ourselves respond to them.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 22:36 GMT

Jim, Robert,

There definitely seems to be something, some reality, but with every effort to pin it down, "it' just slips away. Even our thoughts become a hall of mirrors, as each becomes an observation, enlargement, filter, diversion, etc. of the previous.

So currently there is this theory that it is only the mathematical formulae which model the patterns observed, that are the only true reality. Yet even that is a retreat into a formulaic subset.

All the patterns, structures, frames, contents, etc, seem subjective, relative and emergent, but emergent from what? Math? Isn't math a modeling of those patterns that are emergent in the first place?

If we were to go to the most elemental state, it would presumably be the equilibrium, where all that is emergent cancels out, when it isn't emerging. The void in which quantum energy fluctuates.

Then you have positive and negative, frequency and amplitude. It might seek to push out to infinity, but than fall back to the equilibrium. Basically energy in space.

What are color and sound? Acceleration and velocity? What is mass, but resistance and attraction?

All forms of energy.

Could it be the reason why there doesn't seem to be any there there, isn't the fault of what is there, but what we expect to be there? Our minds like static forms and images. Things we can see and measure and weigh and feel. That is what seems "real" to us. But there are lots of things that seem real to us, that we have come to realize are emergent from our interactions. Maybe we just have more layers to peel away.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 6, 2015 @ 09:25 GMT

Provocative thoughts. The meaning of some things may be better discerned by thinking in the negative.

What does 'non-existence' mean? Does it have a meaningful, non-circular definition?

Is 'non-existence' there or not whether anyone observes it?

Can 'non-existence' be? Can it be further decomposed?

But the ultimate fundamental question is: Can what does not exist become existent, or the reverse, can what exists cease to exist?

Some aspects of our cosmology and quantum theories suggest that what exists can cease to exist, and what was non-existent can come to be existent (e.g. the universe).

Interesting things to contemplate...

In my opinion, the fundamental, sine qua non quality of what exists is the quality of being extended. I think Descartes and Leibniz support this.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

You have hit the nail on the head. There are certain notions in the universe in which we must simply believe, what I call axioms. These beliefs are necessary to anchor each of our consciousness's and allow us to predict the actions of objects.

jim hughes wrote on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 19:55 GMT, "How can we even talk about what 'exists', what's 'real' or what's 'physically out there',...

view entire post

You have hit the nail on the head. There are certain notions in the universe in which we must simply believe, what I call axioms. These beliefs are necessary to anchor each of our consciousness's and allow us to predict the actions of objects.

jim hughes wrote on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 19:55 GMT, "How can we even talk about what 'exists', what's 'real' or what's 'physically out there', when words like 'exist' and 'physical' have no meaningful, non-circular definitions?

"Ask someone what 'exist' means, and you'll probably elicit a slightly patronizing laugh. Persist, and you'll be offered something like 'it exists if it's there whether or not anyone observes it' which of course simply restates the question. It seems there's no possible reply that doesn't include some form of the verb 'to be'.

"The meaning of 'physical' has been reduced to virtual emptiness. If pressed, we fall back in desperation to something like 'can't be further decomposed'.

"These words are empty - there's nothing useful behind them. They seem to be placeholders for concepts we somehow wish we had."

These placeholders are the supernatural axioms that anchor consciousness. They are supernatural since there is no natural definition except the circular one. For a set of axioms that close the universe, though, they do end up defining each other. Objects exist because they are somewhere, which means objects exist, just as you say.

However, the axiom time exists to keep things from happening coincidentally, and coincidences mean that time exists, once again also circular. However, action is the integral of matter over time and so the quotient of action with matter does define time as a duration of action with the axioms of action and matter. The three axioms of matter, time, and action close the universe and that closure does define these axioms with the circular logic of a closed universe.

While the universe simply exists because it does, matter, time, and action exist because of each other and those notions allow us to predict the futures of objects.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 6, 2015 @ 23:42 GMT

Steve,

Think of reality as the dichotomy of energy and form. Form defines the energy and energy manifests the form.

Now consider our physiology. We have a central nervous system to process form, i.e., information and we have the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process the energy that propels our intellectual processes.

So our perception focuses on the points of reference, the concepts, the terms, the mathematical symbols, the words, the descriptions, structures, definitions, delineations. Yet flowing through it all is that underlaying dynamic. Which is a dichotomy as well, with every action being balanced by all other actions and so there is that foundational circularity and in trying to put it all together we like to tie together all those points of reference, because that is what our mind sees. We don't see action, because it would just be a blur, we have reconstruct it from our digitized and quantified process of comprehension. In our very search for clarity, we miss the essence of energy powering reality out of the void.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 7, 2015 @ 00:13 GMT

Well, you already know that I love axioms, especially the trimal of matter, time, and action.

Energy is of course of form of matter and so by mass-energy equivalence, they are one and the same. Form is a beast of space and therefore immediately suspect. I like time and action much more than form. We imagine form from sensations of time delays of objects and so your notion of form is very time like so you should call it time. Each point of reference, what I call landmarks, are just time delays that we sense.

Your underlying dynamic is clearly my action principle. Action is the integral of matter over time and closes the universe. You say that we do not see action and that is true. What we sense are time delays and changes for objects from which space and motion emerge.

As far as energy powering reality out of the void, I am a little less persuaded. For me, energy is matter and reality is matter, time, and action, so the void is something that simply emerges from matter, time, and action. There is really no void and the void is therefore a convenient placeholder both for things that we do not yet understand as well as for things that we will never understand.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 7, 2015 @ 02:39 GMT

Steve,

I'm looking at it from the other side of the looking glass. I'm seeing matter as a "form" of energy.

When we study matter, it seems that under the form are complex interactions of energetic properties.

We think of quanta as particles but what is being described is a quantity of energy, like the amplitude of a wave. Consider other properties, like spin and charge, which are descriptions of energy. They seem to be associated with some underlaying entity, but what is it? A vortex has spin and polarity.

So what is this substance called matter? Presumably the Higgs gives mass, but what is described seems to be a spike of energy.

Yet it is our intuition that there must be some solid substance fronting this energy. Some particles in motion; Electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, quarks, bosons, fermions! Yet that seems to be where this issue of the indeterminacy of reality really comes in. All we can measure is their energy. While our intuition says, "There must be something there."

So until someone can point to something and say that is the irreducible particle of matter, I'm inclined to think of it as form expressed by energy.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Dear Dr. Merali,

Here's a comment i posted on Nature's website about your excellent article -

ay I propose an alternative to the probabilistic understanding of quantum mechanics - one using hidden variables which give exact predictions, in this case by the variables being base-2 mathematics (cosmologist Max Tegmark - director of FQXi, the Foundational Questions Institute which Zeeya...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

PS to my previous comment yesterday -

The human-made universe (1) has all distance associated with its 1's and 0's deleted according to the Yale experiment (2), producing entanglement in space and in time - as well as a universe that is one qubit.

(1) "New way of developing information technology and imaginary time for the purpose of building the universe" (http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0169)

(2) "What is consciousness?" (http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0129)

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Given that the conceptual foundation of Quantum Theory is the "wave-particle" duality; that in the Newtonian theory of classical physics, it is the "action-reaction"; that in Darwin’s theory of evolution, the "variation-selection"; that in Molecular Biology, the "gene-protein"; that in Philosophy, the "mind-body"; that in Cognition, the "analogy-reason"; and so on and on without one exception in all of our discourses, it would make sense to find out why dualities rule the world.

report post as inappropriate

In order to explain relativity, I came up with a rotating wave model of matter way back in 1979 and of course no one except some students and one Phd physicist were interested. Actually an editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics kindly wrote me and suggested a way to improve it which I did.

Quick and short of it is that relativity and QM are an inherent requirement of the rotating wave. It rotates and the only way to put it in motion is along the direction of its axis of spin.

Attached are brief (quick) diagrams and the full article which suggests how mass, along with electric charge is generated plus the real reason for gravity and expanding slowing universe (as far as we can see it).

In order to prove this axial spin in the direction of particle motion, my suggestion is to review the Stern Gerlach experiments (perhaps as Alan Kadin has suggested) and see if one can detect a polar cone which I refer to in the full article.

Another way is to review Dirac's spinors and equation and reconcile them with the rotational and translation velocities of the Rotating Wave. I don't see it as stepping back in time, but finding a different way to till the soil. It might then produce new technologies (EM propeller - massless rocket and rotating beacon transmitters).

Bill Christie

attachments: Rotating_Wave_-_Quick_View.pdf, Rotating_Wave_Wavicle_-_Full_Article.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hi Zeeya,

What is really real....was really good. And the posts are excellent.

In my opinion the deBroglie-Bohm model is getting close, making it digital will get it even closer.

If you recall I am the author of an alternative theory that postulates that the motion of particles and energy is discontinuous on a continuous background of space-time (www.digitalwavetheory.com).

So, in addition to Many Worlds, Bohmian Mechanics and Collapse models the Nature article should include a Discontinuous Motion model of reality.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

The question in the discussion is posed as whether or not it is true that "if there’s an objective reality, then the wavefunction is real". It is suggested here that this is perhaps not a useful question to ask. That would be the case if there is actually no objective reality. That is, if reality is always subjective, or in other words strictly relational and specifically real only relative to...

view entire post

The question in the discussion is posed as whether or not it is true that "if there’s an objective reality, then the wavefunction is real". It is suggested here that this is perhaps not a useful question to ask. That would be the case if there is actually no objective reality. That is, if reality is always subjective, or in other words strictly relational and specifically real only relative to the observing system. A simple example illustrating this point is the original one with a cat in the box. Relative to the experimenter outside the box, the wave function represents the cat as both alive and dead until the box is opened and the state of the cat is observed by the experimenter, at which point the wave function collapses into one of its final states. But this anthropomorphic bias is so much nonsense. Did the universe exist before humans existed, and were physical events nonetheless consistent with quantum mechanics? The cat is also an observer, and from the cat's observational viewpoint, the cat is either alive or dead when the box is opened whether observed by the experimenter or not.

Events are real. The wave function represents the evolution of the statistical outcome of possible events in a defined situation that includes an observer system and some relative portion of the complementary universe that generates the events observed. If the observer system or its complement is redefined, the corresponding wave function changes as well, since the nature of the possible events change at the same time. In the above simple example, if the observer is the experimenter, the wave function includes the uncertainty of the cat's state prior to its observation by the experimenter. If the observer is the cat, the wave function only includes what happens to the cat inside the box. You will find that this recognition of the strictly relational nature of reality leads to a much more more convincing interpretation of the wave function and of the rest of quantum mechanics as well.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 22, 2016 @ 11:17 GMT

YES, the cat is an observer!

report post as inappropriate

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Mar. 22, 2016 @ 14:02 GMT

Yes, Lorraine, the observer need not be human. In fact, the observer need not be conscious or even alive. The observer can be any system that can respond to the events in question in any particular situation. The point of view here is that all reality is relative. And thus to the extent that reality is usefully represented in a particular case by a wavefunction, the wavefunction applies to that...

view entire post

Yes, Lorraine, the observer need not be human. In fact, the observer need not be conscious or even alive. The observer can be any system that can respond to the events in question in any particular situation. The point of view here is that all reality is relative. And thus to the extent that reality is usefully represented in a particular case by a wavefunction, the wavefunction applies to that particular case specifically. The wave function then represents the statistics of a set of possible events that can be experienced by the observer in the case in question. Only the events themselves are real. The wavefunction is a mathematical representation of the statistical properties of the events, corresponding to the observer and the complementary portion of the universe that produces the events in question.

This point of view is an extension of the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics examined by Carlo Rovelli and others in the past few decades. The point of view is quite powerful. For example, it eliminates the whole question of how to interpret wave function collapse associated with measurements. The wave function never collapses. Each event that occurs is real. For example, in a classic two-slit experiment, each event that results in a detection behind the slits is real, but the wave function that describes the statistics of such events before they occur is not real, although it is obviously quite useful. The wave function does not "guide" the path of the particle (e.g., photon or electron) along its path through the slits, as in Bohmian approaches. The behavior of the particle is determined by the nature of the observer (the detection system behind the slits) and the complementary part of the universe that generates the events in question (e.g., the electron gun or laser, the screen with slits, and the geometry of the experiment.) And the wave function thus is not a property of the individual particles that create the events. Rather, the wave function is a property of everything else: the particle generator, the screen with slits, the detection system, and the geometry of the experiment.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Strictly speaking, physics investigates experience. The field of all experience is consciousness. Nature is, in essence, Consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 19, 2017 @ 14:55 GMT

alena - did you read the post just above yours? Why do you believe that consciousness is so essential? Did not our universe behave in a similar fashion before humans appeared on the scene? Are lower forms of life sufficient from a consciousness standpoint? Are even single-celled life forms conscious in some way? But what about a universe that does not contain life forms at all but does have the ability to respond to physical changes? Do such universes still behave lawfully in a way similar to our own? Your point of view appears to perhaps suffer from an excess of anthropomorphism.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 20, 2017 @ 01:19 GMT

Hi Gary. I am in agreement with you on the independence of material reality from conscious awareness of it. Measurement / observation creates a relation between observer and observed that can not exist without both parties.The representation produced from received information can not exist without the process involved in information acquisition and processing. Material reality however can exist without that process. Relative perception by an observer of the macroscopic World and quantum measurement bring about a new representation of reality. All relative measures, including direction of velocity and angular momentum require a viewpoint to be imposed. Without that viewpoint the relative measurements do not exist. In that sense the act of measurement /observation is bringing something new into existence that did not exist prior to establishment of the relation.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 20, 2017 @ 01:47 GMT

Orientation, direction and relative velocity/momentum are not independent of measurement /observation. Attributes such as seen colour and shape are also not independent, being produced by the observing system from received information. The colour seen does not relate only to the wavelength emitted from the object in question but other light in proximity from other objects and the illumination level. The shape seen is made from information received and not all information emitted from the object. The seen shape is therefore a limited representation of the entire object in material reality. The relative representation comes into being when it is produced and does not pre-exist unlike the source material reality. The representation of reality produced from information is not more real than the source reality that provides the information.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (10 not shown)

Gary:

"If the other particle is then similarly measured, the result is not in general determined, but it has been shown to be mathematically correlated to the first one, as per Bell's results." The same is true of any classical system with a limited information content

Wavefunctions only exist as a mathematical technique for describing the behavior of observations. There is no real wave, wafting through the ether.

For further information: See this FQXi webpage and the pages it links to.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 04:40 GMT

Robert, Gary,

It seems to me that some phenomena seem more suited to a wave description and so are easier to mentally reconcile with the wave function description. The likelihood of reflection of light from different thicknesses of glass surface does seem to be related to wavelength and how well the wavelengths fit into the distance. The double slit experiment might be understood as the wave effect of the vibration of an electron passing through both slits and then interfering and affecting the particle path rather than the particle passing through both. It can then be seen as an interaction with the environment that feeds-back rather than just an independent behaviour. It is, when viewed that way, a concrete interaction (rather than an abstract effect) that can work with the mathematics.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 13:32 GMT

Georgina:

Wave *phenomenon* are the things best described as waves. For example, water waves are well described as waves. But that does not mean that the water IS a wave. Water consists of enormous numbers of water molecule particles. Water waves are merely the collective motions of those particles. The same is true in quantum *phenomenon*. There is no observable interference, when only a few particles have passed through the double slits. The interference pattern is built up from the collective distribution of the individual particle's collective behavior. Look at the these slides depicting different ways to interpret double slit interference and think about how interference patterns can be built up by particles scattering off non-smooth surfaces or fields.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 20:59 GMT

Robert, the suggested medium does not provide electromagnetic information whereby the interference pattern could be seen and identified. I am proposing that nevertheless it can interact with electron entities and guide their paths. Such a medium is not a necessary part of Einstein's space-time and, as it provides no direct visual evidence of itself, it is not a part of the "Image reality" formed by observers. Yet the behaviour of the electron giving the results that are seen provides evidence of the interaction. I think the effect of an electron on the environment can be separated from the electron entity rather than considering the effect as the thing. (It seems to me that quantum field theory would have all effects and no causal thing.)

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 23:46 GMT

Re. photons. A flash of light from detection of a photon is not a photon itself but product of processing the received information. Likewise the click of a photo-multiplier. An undetected photon might be regarded as a quantum of information. Indivisible by the barriers in experiments such as double slits and half silver mirrors. Accompanying it as it travels might be a disturbance of the electromagnetic medium; that disturbance being less than a quantum of information is undetectable by the detectors.The quantum of information, not being broken up by the barrier/s, has to take one path or the other but the accompanying undetectable disturbance will take both and can be reunited giving an (undetectable )interference pattern affecting the path of the quantum of information that will be detected as the photon.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 28, 2017 @ 01:27 GMT

The explanation provided is simple and does not require endowing photons with ability to know what an experimenter has done and the ability to adjust what it is in response. Nor does it require going against the principle of causality, becoming what it needs to have been, as some experiments have seemed to require.

The suggestion is that only a part of the whole photon phenomenon is detectable, and that part is identified as the photon. The other undetectable part of the phenomenon is responsible for the seemingly odd findings of evidence for interference.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 29, 2017 @ 23:20 GMT

Illusion relies upon some information being concealed or otherwise unavailable, thus not forming part of the perception of how the event happened. For example the highly replicate-able fire into white doves transformation illusion.That is why illusion needs to be suspected in the double slit and half silvered mirror experiments. If something is happening that is imperceptible except though its effect, it (the cause) may not be built into the perception of how the events is happening. Imperceptible is not the same as nonexistent. That is to say that there can be disturbances that are sufficient to disturb a single particle but not provide a quantum of information that our senses or devices can detect.The alternative is to discard what we trust about objective reality and believe in magic.

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Rob and Georgina,

I spoke loosely. By "real" I was not referring to ontic as opposed to epistemic. I personally believe that the wavefunction is strictly epistemic, so I would agree with you on that point. Furthermore, per relational quantum mechanics, I believe that the epistemic relevance of a given wavefunction applies to a specific observer of a subject system. It describes the state of the subject system before it is observed by the specific observer. And the state in this case is more properly viewed as depending on the knowledge available to the observer prior to the observation. It is interesting to consider cases where the wavefunction is impacted by knowledge that is available to the observer but not known to the observer. This can lead to unexpected results of the measurement. I am considering writing an article illustrating this result.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 25, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT

Gary:

"It describes the state of the subject system before it is observed by the specific observer." That is not possible, since the state being described is not even an attribute of the system being observed. Rather, it is an attribute of the observer-observed relationship. Hence, without the observer, there is no such state at all.

It is exactly the same as the classical case of "calling" a coin either heads or tails. The coin is neither, because it is always both - that is what a two-state superposition looks like, a two-sided coin. And that is why coins reproduce the so-called quantum correlations.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 04:59 GMT

Robert I liked what you said about "coin calling ",I agree that the state described is an attribute of the observer-observed relationship. However I trust that when the method is complete but the result not yet collected the state is already a reality unobserved due to the relations between the atoms of the coin and table on which it rests. Those relations do not require an observer to form a mental picture to be actualised.

When the observer does form a perception of the product state that new model of reality supersedes the previous representation. The fixed state of the material coin-table interaction must precede receipt of information about it due to the non infinite speed of light. Information receipt by the observer is not feeding back to the material coin to make it match the perception.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 13:15 GMT

Georgina:

The coin's state, is that it is in the state of being a coin - always - regardless of whether or not it is ever observed. And it always has two sides. The observer merely changes his or her *decision* about whether to observe it, from one angle or another. That has absolutely nothing to do with the physics of the coin per se. But it has everything to do, with the computation of so-called "quantum correlations." The exact same thing is true with regards to a photon's polarization or an electron's spin.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Rob,

I have glanced at your linked references and it is immediately apparent that we are fellow travelers. I will respond more completely after I have studied your fascinating work. But my immediate response is that you should recognize that the unknown state of the coin in flight is strictly epistemic, not ontic. That is, the state is unknown before observation only because the potentially available information, (it's position, orientation and motion variable values) are not specified. I believe that the same is true for entangled linearly-polarized photons in a singlet state for example. Their polarization orientation is unknown, but the observed results are found to be correlated. There is no mystery to this. The unknown state of polarization is strictly epistemic, not ontic. The observed results are correlated because the polarization states, while unknown for the two photons are always in opposite directions in the same orientation. The whole business about the state of the "first" photon collapsing when it is observed, and this collapse instantaneously changing the state of the other photon is just so much nonsense. (For one thing, if they are spatially separated, there is no absolute "first" one to be observed.)

I will be amazed if you disagree with any of this!

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 20:05 GMT

I do not disagree. But I would point out a subtlety that you (and you are hardly alone in this) have overlooked. The state being looked for, is not merely unknown, it is non existent, outside of the imaginations of those that are wasting their time, trying to observe and interpret it. It is no more real than Percival Lowell's Martian canals. The sad part is, Bernard d'Espagnat came within a heartbeat of recognizing this, forty years ago - but then it was lost.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 21:41 GMT

Rob,

When you say that the state is non-existent, you probably are referring to the QM state, which describes the photon as having a random polarization. I agree with that assessment, but when I say that the photon has a state, I am referring to a determined state, not a random QM type state. Once the 2 photons are emitted in their singlet state, they have some definite polarization which happens to be unknown but not random. This is no less a state then the initial state of a classical particle defined by its position and velocity in some force field. Perhaps QM states should be given some other name.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 00:26 GMT

I was referring to the fact that the unknown state, only has a single component. The second component, whose measurement is the entire reason for ever performing a Bell test in the first place, does not exist. Hence the strange correlations.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT

Rob,

You have lost me here. The fact is that the observed correlations are anything but strange. They are exactly the same correlations that one would expect classically. They are only strange from the (incorrect) standpoint of Einstein's "locality" concept, even with hidden variables, as shown by Bell. The most common interpretation of Bell test experiments, that the "first" wavefunction collapses and instantaneously modifies the other distant wavefunction, is just so much malarkey. The results are easily understood by observing that the two coupled particles or photons have determined but unknown opposing polarizations, and this produces the observed correlations. There is no mystery here except in the minds of some quantum theorists.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT

Bell's theorem is based on a false premise, that was noted 40 years ago, by Bernard d'Espagnat. The theorem ONLY applies to measurements that are actual attributes of ONLY the object being measured. Spin and polarity are NOT such attributes, rather they are attributes of the relationship BETWEEN the object and the observer. Bell's theorem has absolutely nothing to say about such attributes.

The result IS entirely local and realistic.

"There is no mystery here except in the minds of some quantum theorists." Exactly! For 50 years, they have been falsely assuming that Bell's theorem applies to the only case they are attempting to apply it to. But it does not.

Bell, along with everyone else, unwittingly assumed that more than one independent (uncorrelated) bit can be measured. This assumption has been known for decades, and was specifically noted by d’Espagnat in 1979, on the bottom of page 166, of this article in Scientific American (“These conclusions require a subtle but important extension of the meaning assigned to a notation…”): The Quantum Theory and Reality

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Rob and Georgina,

I must add that I believe that there are some other QM phenomena that appear to be truly ontic rather than epistemic. As one example, consider single photon interference at the output of a two path beam-split and recombine apparatus. Results show that as one of the two paths is slowly lengthened, the interference result changes as one would expect for two waves traveling down the two paths. But there is only one photon in the apparatus at a time, not two! And we know that a photon cannot split and go both ways. So it is really the fact that the photon could have gone either way that appears to produce the interference pattern in this case, a true ontic QM effect. IF some means with "negligible impact" is introduced to detect which path is taken by the photon, the interference pattern no longer appears. A loop can be introduced into one of the paths so that it can be much longer than the other path, and there will still be an interference pattern, as long as we don't know when the photon was emitted from the source. If we introduce a "negligible impact" measurement to determine the instant of emission, the interference pattern disappears. This seems to introduce an epistemic element to these phenomena in some way. Some food for thought.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 20:17 GMT

The interference pattern is almost entirely due to the information content of the apparatus geometry, not the properties or information content of the entities passing through that geometry. Consequently, if you change the geometry (as one of the two paths is slowly lengthened), the pattern, caused by that geometry, will change.

Do you suppose that the scattering pattern, produced by your mother's face, which enables you to recognize her face by sight, is being caused by some mysterious property of solar photons? Of course not. It is caused almost entirely by the scattering geometry. So are the interference patterns.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 26, 2017 @ 22:20 GMT

Rob,

I don't follow that argument. Nothing is recorded by the apparatus until a photon passes through it and is detected with some strength. The recorded strength varies in the way that one would expect due to interference of two waveforms at the same frequency. How is the information content of the apparatus defined? How does that information content influence the recorded signal strength? The apparatus does not involve scattering of the photon in any way. The photon passes through a half silvered mirror to two paths and are eventually recombined and directed to the detector. And remember that there is only one photon involved at a time. I don't recognize anybody's face with one photon.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 00:17 GMT

Having two paths, rather than one, for the photon, is like having two planets, rather than one, in the vicinity of a rocket's trajectory. The mere existence of a second planet causes the force field near the rocket, to differ from what it would be if there were only a single planet. That difference in field, causes the rocket to scatter into a different path. The mere existence of another path *is* scattering.

Have you ever seen a mirage? That is scattering caused by the changing temperature and density fields, that the light is passing through. If the field exhibits rippled "interference" patterns, then so will any photons scattering through those fields. The number of photons is irrelevant. If the field changes the energy of the particle, then the recorded strength will vary.

The interference thus really exists. But it exists as the particle scattering properties of the field through which the particle passes, not as a propagating wave phenomenon. It is analogous to particle trajectories being altered, by the warping of spacetime, caused by the existence of masses, in General Relativity.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 13:04 GMT

Rob,

I have trouble seeing the analogy that you are suggesting. A planet generates a gravitational field, which has a known effect. A second available optical path not taken has no comparable effect on a photon. The two optical paths in these tests are typically simple thin optical fibres I would imagine, although evacuated tubes might be used for some straight paths. The gravitational...

view entire post

Rob,

I have trouble seeing the analogy that you are suggesting. A planet generates a gravitational field, which has a known effect. A second available optical path not taken has no comparable effect on a photon. The two optical paths in these tests are typically simple thin optical fibres I would imagine, although evacuated tubes might be used for some straight paths. The gravitational effects of such equipment would be negligible compared to the ambient gravitation in the lab in which such experiments take place. Scattering of a photon as it travels down an optical path is imaginable, but there is no reason to believe that it is significantly impacted by the presence of the alternate fibre path material.

I don't find your explanation at all credible in this case. The observed impact on the detected photon energy varies with changes in one of the two path lengths in exactly the way that one would expect based on phase interference of two light waves at the photon frequency. It makes absolutely no sense to try to explain this as a scattering phenomenon, which would create a monotonic reduction in received energy, while the actual received energy varies sinusoidally exactly as one would expect for wave interference with changing phase. This is one case where it is very hard to talk your way out of the ontic QM explanation. That explanation is that the photon could have taken either path. We don't know which one is taken. So the resulting received energy reflects the equal likelihood that either path is taken. There are many references for experiments performed of this type. For one typical reference, see "Single photon quantum erasing: a demonstration experiment", T L Dimitrova1 and A Weis, which can be found online.

If the experiment involved a continuous stream of photons, there would be no mystery, as the impact on received energy would just be precisely the expected phase interference classical effect. The shock comes only because there is only one photon in the device at a time, and since the photon cannot be split, the interference is between the two potential paths that the photon has available to take. This is a clear ontic QM effect. I can't think of a way around it, and haven't seen one suggested yet.

view post as summary

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 27, 2017 @ 16:23 GMT

All physical structures generate electromagnetic fields, in addition to gravitational ones. Even though equal numbers of positive and negative charges within these structures, cause almost all of the EM field to cancel out, it does not cancel out entirely, because the positive and negative charges are not EXACTLY co-located. Because The EM force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, even this tiny residual EM field, is enough to alter the EM field in the vicinity of any structure and thus alter the path of a tiny object passing through that field, that is sensitive to the EM field. Photons and electrons are sensitive. Large, classically-sized objects are not - the field is too tiny to have any observable effect on such an object.

David Bohm worked most of this out, in his 1951 book, "Quantum Theory", in the chapters dealing with scattering.

It makes no difference if the particles only pass through one at a time. Look at the slides in the link I gave above (Jul. 26, 2017 @ 13:32 GMT ) and think about it.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Gary Alan Gordon replied on Jul. 28, 2017 @ 00:14 GMT

Rob,

I don't think that we are getting anywhere. I read your paper and briefing and they didn't make much sense to me, so you are wasting your time. I thought that I saw something there, but on a close look, I just didn't get it. Thanks for your thoughts on these subjects though.

report post as inappropriate

hide replies