Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe

[Stanley Edwards]

David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist,

I like this idea. I would possibly have never come across this theory if it wasn't for the internet and Urban75. Now I'm off on a great photography project inspired by this quote

 

[ska invita]

I wonder if anyone is up for talking a little bit more about one of the issues that came up in this thread - and it seems to be at the heart of quantum physics in general.

I'm thinking of the idea where by a quantum event exists in more than place or state(?) until it is observed. It came up in this thread in regard to the two entangled particles (electrons were they?).

I saw something on teevee the other night and it seemed to say that this relationship between the quantum and the observer crops up regularly within the field (I know next to nothing about science, and just bumble about as you can tell). The observers act of observing the event somehow effects it? Does it? Or is it more subtle than that?

So, what I want to know is - is this really the case, is it definitely ruled out that its not just a case of events taking place at such an infinitely fast speed within a tiny space that is making it impossible to observe the movement between the particles positions? and if it is consdiered a definite, then what kind of conclusions has mainstream science drawn from this, if any?

Or is it putting up a big shrug for now?
Where do we stand acording to mainstream science in regard to this phenomenon?

It seems to me that it is this unusual behaviour which is at the heart of much philosphising about the consequences of quantum physics...

 

[laptop]

I'm thinking of the idea where by a quantum event exists in more than place or state(?) until it is observed. It came up in this thread in regard to the two entangled particles (electrons were they?).

The Laptop Interpretation ( ) is that it doesn't have a state until it's observed. Which is different than it having more than one.

It's my attempt at a simpler description of the standard phrase "superposition of states" - until observed, the electron has spin both "up" and "down", the notorious cat is both alive and dead, they say.

I saw something on teevee the other night and it seemed to say that this relationship between the quantum and the observer crops up regularly within the field... The observers act of observing the event somehow effects it? Does it? Or is it more subtle than that?

The equations work - amazingly well - if you assume that the observed thingy has no state (or is in a "superposition of state") until observed. So, yes, observation comes into near every quantum calculation.

This standard approach is referred to by philosophers as the "shut up and calculate" approach. It says - don't ask what the equations "mean" - just use them. It implies that there may be no "common-sense" description - no valid analogy to things that go on at the scale of a metre or so - for the things that go on at the scale of 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 metre.

So, what I want to know is - is this really the case, is it definitely ruled out that its not just a case of events taking place at such an infinitely fast speed within a tiny space that is making it impossible to observe the movement between the particles positions? and if it is consdiered a definite, then what kind of conclusions has mainstream science drawn from this, if any?

Or is it putting up a big shrug for now?

The standard approach is, indeed, a big shrug.

The idea of "events taking place at such an infinitely fast speed" doesn't really make sense. One thing that, as I see it, even most quantum theorists haven't got to grips with is that if the (small-scale) world is quantum then there is a minimum length and a minimum time - 10^-35 metres and 10^-43 seconds. It doesn't make sense to talk about a shorter time.

Quantum Loop Gravity is an attempt - currently pursued by a small minority of theorists - to come to terms with this. It treats the world as a "foam" of linked mathematical thingies ("events", possibly) - and space-time "emerges" from the properties of the foam. That is, it is "background-free" - it doesn't assume a structure for space, it makes one.

Rather than "faster stuff", various people who reject the standard interpretation talk about "hidden variables" that work "beneath" the quantum observations and reinstate a nice determinist world "underneath", with a layer of apparent quantum wierdness in between it and us. As far as I know, no-one has come up with an experiement that would allow us to tell whether those hidden variables are there.

Where do we stand acording to mainstream science in regard to this phenomenon?

It seems to me that it is this unusual behaviour which is at the heart of much philosphising about the consequences of quantum physics...

Who "we"?

Almost all philosphising about the consequences of quantum physics is crap.

The standard interpretation simply says "don't do it".

Almost all of it is people starting with a conclusion they'd like to draw and looking for textual support for that conclusion in what others have written about quantum mechanics. Even Roger Penrose fell prey to this in The Emperor's New Mind. He at least understands rather a lot about quantum mechanics, but used it in an irrelevant way to try to rescue free will. Most are building half-arsed metaphors on top of metaphors that are already crumbling.

I say "almost" but I'm not sure that I can think of an example that I don't consider crap right now. One day soon I might have a go with the implications of QLG. I shall probably later conclude that whatever I say was crap

 

[ZWord]

This standard approach is referred to by philosophers as the "shut up and calculate" approach. It says - don't ask what the equations "mean" - just use them. It implies that there may be no "common-sense" description - no valid analogy to things that go on at the scale of a metre or so - for the things that go on at the scale of 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 metre.

The standard approach is, indeed, a big shrug.

Almost all philosphising about the consequences of quantum physics is crap.

The standard interpretation simply says "don't do it".

Not that I disagree with anything you wrote here, except -that almost all philosophising... is crap,- (I actually think Penrose made some very good arguments in his book in particular about classes of problems that humans can solve but can't be solved by any algorithm, - implying that the style and nature of computation may not after all be the key to conscious intelligence.)

Why do you think there is this unwillingness of scientists to speculate about the meaning of their results?

Why not - do it?

Just because scientists in general won't do it, why should that mean that people shouldn't. Maybe scientists just don't generally like philosophical speculation in general, - particularly when the kind of metaphysic people seem to be inclined to come up with when they do start philosophising about the meaning of the equations seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to what mystics have been saying for a very long time.

It is of course central to the wasp view of the world that nothing of any value was ever thought of or said by anyone except western Europeans over the last few centuries.

But as you know, I'm a fruitloop, so my conclusions as to why the standard approach is - a big shrug - may well be prejudiced. But what are yours?

 

[ska invita]

Well thanks for the reply Laptop - but Im still undure on the the effect of the observer.

Is the observer actually having an effect, or is the observer just necessary for the calculation to be made?

AS an observer does the scientist effect the state of the event, or just provide a point in space -time from which to cross reference with the event so as to make a calculation.

If the observer actually has a real effect on the event, can the state of the observer (I don't know how) somehow effect the outcome of the event?

Does that make sense as a question?

 

[Crispy]

There might be some confusion as to what exactly an 'observation' is. We can either wait for an event to emit some energy or a particle (in which case, the event has already happened and the 'collapse' has already happened). Or, we ping a photon off something to measure it and by interacting with it we collapse it. It's a catch-22 situation.

But, let me make it clear that it's not some metaphysical concept of observation that causes the collapse, but an actual physical process (which has to occour or we would not be able to observe anything in the first place)

 

[ska invita]

There might be some confusion as to what exactly an 'observation' is. We can either wait for an event to emit some energy or a particle (in which case, the event has already happened and the 'collapse' has already happened). Or, we ping a photon off something to measure it and by interacting with it we collapse it. It's a catch-22 situation.

But, let me make it clear that it's not some metaphysical concept of observation that causes the collapse, but an actual physical process (which has to occour or we would not be able to observe anything in the first place)

So, in order to observe a scientist has to, basically/metaphorically, prod it with a stick?

The reason I ask is I have heard it extrapolated from the idea of observance resulting in a "consolidation" (kind of the word i was looking for) where by the electron, or what have you, is made to "choose" a point in space-time where before it was one of a number of variables, or part of a wave, or even in two places at the same time (according to special photographic techniques), that this can mean that by our conscious thought we can effect reality - that observing, and meditating upon the world around us has a direct affect on quantum activity.

When we talk about "observing" I take it that it definitely is not enough to just look...

 

[axon]

<snip> that this can mean that by our conscious thought we can effect reality - that observing, and meditating upon the world around us has a direct affect on quantum activity.

When we talk about "observing" I take it that it definitely is not enough to just look...

AFAIK there is no way our consciousness can "affect" reality in the way you are talking about above. It is simply as you very succinctly put earlier, prodding with sticks. To observe something you need to interact with it, be by prodding it with photons, radio waves or simply a good old fashioned finger.

 

[laptop]

The reason I ask is I have heard it extrapolated from the idea of observance resulting in a "consolidation" (kind of the word i was looking for)

"Collapse" (of the wavefunction) is the standard term...

where by the electron, or what have you, is made to "choose" a point in space-time where before it was one of a number of variables, or part of a wave, or even in two places at the same time (according to special photographic techniques),

Being in two places at once is what waves do. The weirdness comes in when you think of it as a particle, then as a wave, at the "wrong" times.

At least one leading experimenter (Don Eigler) says that "If you do the calculations on a wave, you always get the right answer. Always." - implying (though not quite brave enough to say it) that the wave/particle duality is no more than a failure of description of the maths.

that this can mean that by our conscious thought we can effect reality - that observing, and meditating upon the world around us has a direct affect on quantum activity.

In fact, if you think about it, the philosophy (ontology) is just as weird as the quantum stuff.

The idea that observing "changes" reality presupposes that reality exists when we're not looking at it. Or, to be specific, that the electron has a state before it's observed.

If you take either the view that the electron has no state before it's observed, or the view that it exists in all its possible states before it's observed, the question is quite different.

It's ironic that most hardcore quantum physicists are deeply committed - psychologically at least - to ontological realism: the idea that there is A World Out There that exists independently of our observations.

They get quite upset when some awkward bugger like me asks "but if there were - how could we tell?"

When we talk about "observing" I take it that it definitely is not enough to just look...

It is enough. There are experiments where "looking at" things affects, for example, the lifetime of a particle before it decays.

And as Crispy says, "looking at" basically involves waiting for the object of interest to kick out one or more particles of its own accord, or poking it with one or more particles to see what comes out. There's no other way.

 

[ZWord]

AFAIK there is no way our consciousness can "affect" reality in the way you are talking about above. It is simply as you very succinctly put earlier, prodding with sticks. To observe something you need to interact with it, be by prodding it with photons, radio waves or simply a good old fashioned finger.

When you try to detect a photon, or an electron, to find out if it's gone through slit A or slit B, you have the detector on the other side of the slits.

How then does the observation affect the event.

Or similarly, if it's a case of a photon being fired at a half-silvered mirror, - (this experiment is covered in Penrose's book) It seems the photon splits into two, and "half" goes through the mirror, and carries on on its trajectory, and the other "half" gets reflected. But oddly, if you put a photon detector, either to catch the photon on the reflected trajectory, or on the through the looking glass trajectory, it turns out to be fully "there" . How in this case does the detection interfere with the event you're detecting. (the "splitting" of the photon by the half-silvered mirror.)

 

[axon]

When you try to detect a photon, or an electron, to find out if it's gone through slit A or slit B, you have the detector on the other side of the slits.
How then does the observation affect the event.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but.... if I understand correctly the observation event here occurs at the detector. If you use a photon detector you detect a photon that went through one of the two slits. If you use a wave detector you detect a wave that has gone through both slits.
My point in the previous post was that it was not an act of consciousness that collapsed the wave function, it was the process of observation (which necessarily relies on some interaction between the observing apparatus and the thing* being observed).

*thing: a word used to describe a phenomenon that is both a wave and a particle.

 

[ZWord]

if it's a case of a photon being fired at a half-silvered mirror, - (this experiment is covered in Penrose's book) It seems the photon splits into two, and "half" goes through the mirror, and carries on on its trajectory, and the other "half" gets reflected. But oddly, if you put a photon detector, either to catch the photon on the reflected trajectory, or on the through the looking glass trajectory, it turns out to be fully "there" . How in this case does the detection interfere with the event you're detecting.? (the "splitting" of the photon by the half-silvered mirror.)

The detection does appear to affect the reality, as it turns out that whereever you measure first, the photon turns out to be there, which ought to be impossible. But no-one can explain how the act of detection could physically cause the photon to "come back together" and be where you try to detect it on either trajectory. So in the absence of a better explanation, some people - who don't agree with the axiom of materialist science that consciousness can't have any causal effects, reckon that maybe it's the consciousness that causes this mysterious and magical behaviour.

This experiment is covered by Penrose in the Emperor's new mind, in a chapter entitled Quantum mysteries and quantum magic.

The title of the book is also suggestive.

 

[axon]

I have Penrose's other book, (Shadows of the mind I think), on my reading list as I think he's ideas on consciousness are very dodgy. I see it as a desperate attempt to afford significance to humans in the big universe; cor blimey, I thought we'd scrapped that concept with Darwin and Copernicus. If I do ever get around to reading the book, I'll post up my comments.
As for the photons, can;t really say much wothout reading up on the experiments, e.g. what is half a photon?

 

[Jonti]

... it turns out that whereever you measure first, the photon turns out to be there, which ought to be impossible* ... no-one can explain how the act of detection could physically cause the photon to "come back together" and be where you try to detect it on either trajectory.

That's very well put

I think the key point is that wherever you measure first is an operation that adds information into the system. Things go one way or another according to how we take a view. Does the tree falling in a forest make a sound, if no one hears? Perhaps, in the realm of QM, the answer really is 'No', but things are so entangled that this is exceptional.

But it's not fair to imply that QM does not explain this behaviour of photons. QM accurately predicts the results of the experiment you mention, as it predicts the behaviour of other quanta, with rigourous mathematics and exact measurement.


* emphasis added

 

[merlin wood]

That's very well put

But it's not fair to imply that QM does not explain this behaviour of photons. QM accurately predicts the results of the experiment you mention, as it predicts the behaviour of other quanta, with rigourous mathematics and exact measurement.

* emphasis added

But then prediction is not the necessarily same as explanation. So you could accurately predict planetary motion using Kepler's laws long before Newton discovered and described enough details of gravity to explain this motion.

 

[Jonti]

I have Penrose's other book, (Shadows of the mind I think), on my reading list as I think he's ideas on consciousness are very dodgy. I see it as a desperate attempt to afford significance to humans in the big universe; cor blimey, I thought we'd scrapped that concept with Darwin and Copernicus. If I do ever get around to reading the book, I'll post up my comments.
As for the photons, can;t really say much wothout reading up on the experiments, e.g. what is half a photon?

I recently ploughed through The Emperor's New Mind. I hadn't realised the title was a wry reference to strong AI's claims to explain consciousness.

Not a bad read. He certainly persuades me that consciousness is not a Turing machine of any sort, although I'm not so sure about his theory of mind. Then again, I've got my own