Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 213 (203514)
04-28-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-28-2005 12:06 AM


God post, very well explained.
I've seen the double slit expereriment in a class before and the part about the detectors determining which slit the photon went through and the pattern not happening(wave colapse) was not mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the interference pattern goes away when you observe what slit the photon goes through unless the detectors are affecting the photons and the detectors are the cause for the pattern to disappear. I don't buy it that the waves 'know' when they are being observed and then collapse into particles.
Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle! Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?
This seems to suggest that the detectors are affecting the photons. Perhaps when the photon hits the detector it messes up the interference pattern it would have made.
Also, I don't see how you go from this:
if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed.
to this:
It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer.
It seems like a pretty big jump to me. In order for waves to act as particles we have to be observing them, so in order for the universe to exist god has to be oberving it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 12:06 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 11:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 05-16-2005 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 213 (203525)
04-28-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2005 10:00 PM


Hey,
Glad you're enjoying the thread:
quote:
I've seen the double slit expereriment in a class before and the part about the detectors determining which slit the photon went through and the pattern not happening(wave colapse) was not mentioned.
Then I would have a great deal of trouble discerning what it was your class was studying since this is what the experiment is about. Were you studying wave ripples are something?
quote:
I find it hard to believe that the interference pattern goes away when you observe what slit the photon goes through unless the detectors are affecting the photons and the detectors are the cause for the pattern to disappear. I don't buy it that the waves 'know' when they are being observed and then collapse into particles.
Well, you know what they say about the argument from incredulity. We need be careful of those logical fallacies. How do you explain Heisenberg's prediction of this [1] and Gribbin's [2] and Feynman's [3] seconding of the notion that it occurs. Some pretty strong science in those guys just to discard a notion because we don't get it, don't you think?
Of course, this being science, it need be questioned repeatedly and voraciously and if it can be falsified, many would love to know it, including myself.
quote:
This seems to suggest that the detectors are affecting the photons. Perhaps when the photon hits the detector it messes up the interference pattern it would have made.
The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by.
"John Archibald Wheeler is one of those thinkers who takes the ideas of quantum mechanics seriously. After studying the Copenhagen explanation of the double slit experiment — with its emphasis on what the observer knows and when it is known — Wheeler realized that the observer's choice might control those variables in a test.
"If what you say is true," he said (in effect), "then I may choose to know a property after the event should already have taken place." [1] Wheeler realized that in such a situation, the observer's choice would determine the outcome of the experiment — regardless of whether the outcome should logically have been determined long ago.
"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the nave realists. "Yup," said the mathematicians."
quote:
Also, I don't see how you go from........
If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a particle (energy to matter) and since there is matter in our universe that is exhibiting that form rather than its energy persona, it follows that an observer has collapsed those waves. In fact, as stated in my article, Frank Tipler has calculated that observer. So this theory is a theory based not on intuition but on scientific experiment and mathematics.
Frank J. Tipler's Web Site
quote:
It seems like a pretty big jump to me. In order for waves to act as particles we have to be observing them, so in order for the universe to exist god has to be oberving it.
God is your term (Tipler's too--rather strange since he was a hard atheist before he started this work). You are certainly welcome to your personal belief system. Many of us choose to stay out of metaphysics and look at hard science. See if a quantum erasure experiment will help you further your knowledge on this:
"The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not."
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-28-2005 11:55 PM
This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 04-29-2005 12:04 AM

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2005 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 12:07 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2005 6:32 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 213 (203534)
04-29-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-28-2005 11:03 PM


It takes an observer?
If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a particle...
This is a big "if". I don't think that it takes an "observer" if you require that to be a sentient thing. Would you care to elaborate on why you think it might take such an observer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-28-2005 11:03 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 4:09 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 34 of 213 (203560)
04-29-2005 4:03 AM


Debunking some nonsense
I just read through this thread and I would like to comment on a few points Jerry made in several posts.
In Message 1, Jerry wrote:
[...] quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solid in the universe.
The collapse of the wave-function (not the "wave-collapse function", as you have it) does not result in "making matter solid in the universe." It simply means the realisation of one of several possibilities. I think you are mixing up ideas about waves, energy and matter, and are somehow seeing waves and energy as unreal, and (solid) matter as real. The following quote (from Message 9) illustrates this:
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed.
In Message 14, Jerry wrote:
Darwinism because it's not science, it's religion.
This is sloppy thinking. If something is not science, it's therefore religion? Shopping is religion? Having a telephone conversation is religion?
Also in Message 14, Jerry wrote:
Theories of science must be taken through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science.
Another example of careless thinking. Something must undergo a certain procedure to become what it already is? That doesn't make sense.
Again, in Message 14, Jerry wrote:
[...] nothing in Darwinism is falsifiable. I would love to hear someone falsify common descent, or that man and apes shared a common ancestor, or that huge, ferocious land mammals called pakicetus poofed its legs into flippers, crawled off into the oceans and magically morphed into whales, or that weird looking reptiles shoved their jawbones up into their ears and poofed into mammals.
You are painting a false picture by using the word 'poof'. It suggests a rapid, if not instantaneous process, whereas Darwinism states no such thing. In fact, Darwinism proposes quite the opposite: the process of evolution is gradual and can take literally ages and ages to produce even the slightest difference between an organism and its descendants.
Also, I am not sure you understand what 'falsifiable' means. It doesn't show from what you said about it. The fact that common descent has not been falsified as yet, does not mean that it isn't falsifiable at all.
In Message 32, Jerry wrote:
Catholic Scientist writes:
This seems to suggest that the detectors are affecting the photons. Perhaps when the photon hits the detector it messes up the interference pattern it would have made.
The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by.
I'd love to hear your technical explanation of how a photon detector works.
On second thought, don't bother. A detector cannot observe a photon "going by". To detect a photon, it must hit the detector, it's as simple as that. And when a photon hits a detector, it's no longer available to cause an interference pattern elsewhere.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 4:47 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 213 (203562)
04-29-2005 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
04-29-2005 12:07 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
It seems it does, Ned, but it's not me proposing this, it is well known physicists both dead and alive.
It started in the 1920s when quantum mechanics were just being discovered when Heisenberg wrote in his uncertainty principle paper in 1927, "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it."[insertion mine]
That's a strange statement if you think about it. The path of a particle does not exist unless it is watched by an observer? That's what the man just said and this started it all.
And then came the double-slit experiments which seemed to bring that statement into experimental science (as I've noted above).
Feynman stated on this, "do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
Let's go to the University of Sussex where Gribbins is one of my favorite dudes on this. Read this whole page, guys:
"It requires an observer intelligent enough to infer what is happening, and what would have happened if the particle had been heading towards the inner hemisphere (so a cat, for example, clearly would not be intelligent enough to cause this particular collapse of a wave function). Under these circumstances, the absence of an observation can collapse the quantum wave function as effectively as an actual observation can. At least, so says the Copenhagen interpretation.
This central role for the observer -- not just any observer, but an intelligent observer -- lies at the heart of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics."
Quantum mysteries

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 12:07 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 9:22 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 46 by JustinC, posted 04-29-2005 12:29 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 213 (203569)
04-29-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Parasomnium
04-29-2005 4:03 AM


Re: Debunking some nonsense
quote:
I just read through this thread and I would like to comment on a few points Jerry made in several posts.
I bid you welcome and look forward to a meaningful discussion in science with you.
quote:
The collapse of the wave-function (not the "wave-collapse function"
You say potaytoe, I say pataatoe, bet you a dollar to a donut it doesn't matter that much as I think anyone can dissect the meaning.
quote:
does not result in "making matter solid in the universe." It simply means the realisation of one of several possibilities. I think you are mixing up ideas about waves, energy and matter, and are somehow seeing waves and energy as unreal, and (solid) matter as real.
Cough....I'm sorry? Those several possibilities would be....like what? I'm afraid you haven't said anything here. This sounds like little more than an opinion to me and opinions don't count in science. Please try this post again pointing out specifics with references please, as I did when I presented it. I think you can advance your thoughts, you just have a bit further to go.
quote:
This is sloppy thinking. If something is not science, it's therefore religion? Shopping is religion? Having a telephone conversation is religion?
That would depend on who you're calling and what you're talking about. Calling the First Church of Elvis in Vegas and giving your heart to Elvis is certainly religion. I do not recommend this, by the way.
With this said, I only term Darwinism religion, because this is exactly what it is. There is not one tenet of it you can show has been taken through the scientific method to be shown as science. But why else on earth would people be out there sputtering until they are purple in the face trying to save a science that many other people know isn't a science to begin with? It is secular humanist religion, I'm afraid.
quote:
Another example of careless thinking. Something must undergo a certain procedure to become what it already is? That doesn't make sense.
Nah...I think it probably isn't unless it becomes. If it don't become, it ain't. Darwinism never became. It ain't.
quote:
You are painting a false picture by using the word 'poof'. It suggests a rapid, if not instantaneous process, whereas Darwinism states no such thing. In fact, Darwinism proposes quite the opposite: the process of evolution is gradual and can take literally ages and ages to produce even the slightest difference between an organism and its descendants.
Nope. My interpretation of poofs doesn't mean instantaneous poofs, just magical poofs ethereally caused by spells from anointed poof fairies inherent in certain "sciences" I attempt to stay away from.
quote:
Also, I am not sure you understand what 'falsifiable' means. It doesn't show from what you said about it. The fact that common descent has not been falsified as yet, does not mean that it isn't falsifiable at all.
Sorry, I understand perfectly what the term falsifiable means and if common descent had been falsified, has it occurred to you that it would no longer be considered as true? The deal is, it is not falsifiable, therefore according to science, it isn't science either.
quote:
I'd love to hear your technical explanation of how a photon detector works.
On second thought, don't bother. A detector cannot observe a photon "going by". To detect a photon, it must hit the detector, it's as simple as that. And when a photon hits a detector, it's no longer available to cause an interference pattern elsewhere.
COOL! The next time you pass a cop with a radar detector out, floorboard that sucker. Remember, he cannot observe you going by unless you hit him. (I wouldn't recommend that latter one, either).
Thanks for the post.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2005 4:03 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2005 5:50 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 205 by derwood, posted 05-16-2005 3:49 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 37 of 213 (203576)
04-29-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 4:47 AM


Re: Debunking some nonsense
Jerry writes:
Parasomnium writes:
The collapse of the wave-function (not the "wave-collapse function")
anyone can dissect the meaning.
Parsing "collapse of the wave function", I get the meaning that there is a function that describes a wave and that said function collapses. When I try "wave-collapse function", I get the meaning that there is a function which has the purpose of collapsing waves. That's quite a different meaning. When talking science, one must be precise and, more importantly, know what one is talking about.
The wave function describes the probabilities of finding a particle at particular positions. The collapse of the wave function is nothing more than actually finding a particle at a certain position. When you have found the particle (observed it), then the probability of finding it elsewhere is zero. That's what is meant by the collapse of the wave function.
Jerry writes:
Parasomnium writes:
It simply means the realisation of one of several possibilities.
Those several possibilities would be....like what?
It's possible to find a particle at position X, and the wave function describes the probability of that happening. It's also possible to find a particle at position Y, and the wave function also describes the probability of that happening. The collapse of the wave function means that one of the possibilities has become reality, and you have actually found the particle at a certain position.
Jerry writes:
There is not one tenet of it you can show has been taken through the scientific method to be shown as science.
Name one, and we'll see.
Jerry writes:
My interpretation of poofs doesn't mean instantaneous poofs, just magical poofs ethereally caused by spells from anointed poof fairies inherent in certain "sciences" I attempt to stay away from.
Trying to ridicule the theory of evolution isn't very convincing. Please support your interpretation of 'poofs' in evolution.
Jerry writes:
The deal is, it {common descent, P.} is not falsifiable, therefore according to science, it isn't science either.
Why is common descent not falsifiable?
Jerry writes:
COOL! The next time you pass a cop with a radar detector out, floorboard that sucker. Remember, he cannot observe you going by unless you hit him.
Sloppy thinking again. You have me confused with a radar wave. What the cop detects with his device are radar waves (photons) reflected by a car. If for some reason the reflected photons do not fall on the detector, they do not constitute a measurement. In other words: the cop cannot observe radar waves unless they hit his detector.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 29-Apr-2005 11:42 AM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 4:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 6:03 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 47 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:12 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 38 of 213 (203577)
04-29-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Parasomnium
04-29-2005 5:50 AM


Re: Debunking some nonsense
You can see why he'd be confused, its easy to mistake a single photon for a Cadillac. Quantum weirdness seems to be getting a whole lot weirder in this thread.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2005 5:50 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Parasomnium, posted 04-29-2005 6:58 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 39 of 213 (203581)
04-29-2005 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Wounded King
04-29-2005 6:03 AM


Cadillac detectors
Did you know that in the lesser educated police departments they provide their officers with Cadillac detectors one day, and Chrysler detectors another? Lately, they are puzzled by the fact that only officers who have NOT detected a Cadillac or a Chrysler a certain day, report for duty the next day...

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 6:03 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 213 (203616)
04-29-2005 9:13 AM


I have seen people ask for examples of a mechanism a hypothetical intelligent designer would use to implement its design.
If the designer is the observer of quantum mechanics, then the act of observing the right place at the right time could be the mechanism. I predict that someday QM and ID will support each other in this reguard.
A lot still needs to be done in QM, however it is true that most interpretations currently suggest an observer. That alone should be enough to make most athiests/agnostics pause.
Combine that with the fact that there are doubts about Neo-Darwinism, doubts about the fossil record, and doubts about the authenticity of the bible and its easy to see how any reasonable person should have doubts. As a former athiest I know first-hand. Now I'm agnostic, baby!
However, I, unlike most of my fellow agnostics, am willing to listen to the other side, rather than merely read about the other side on Panda's Thumb or some other biased site.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2005 9:27 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2005 9:34 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 11:21 AM Limbo has not replied
 Message 48 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:15 PM Limbo has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 213 (203618)
04-29-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jerry Don Bauer
04-29-2005 4:09 AM


Re: It takes an observer?
It seems it does, Ned, but it's not me proposing this, it is well known physicists both dead and alive.
Actually, that is an old expression of the idea. Recent work with quantum entanglement shows that you have to have no interaction whatever or the entanglement is destroyed. It does not require 'intelligent' observation. It simply requires some interaction with some other part of the universe.
The idea that an intelligent 'observer' is required is something which has grown out of the everyday idea of "observe". Any observation requires some interaction with the system understudy. It does not require that an intelligent person examine the result of the interaction. We use the word, colloquially, to mean the persons examination. What actually 'collapses the wave function' is the interaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 4:09 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 04-29-2005 5:54 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 213 (203619)
04-29-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 9:13 AM


One attribute of the designer then...
If the designer is the observer of quantum mechanics, then the act of observing the right place at the right time could be the mechanism. I predict that someday QM and ID will support each other in this reguard.
A lot still needs to be done in QM, however it is true that most interpretations currently suggest an observer. That alone should be enough to make most athiests/agnostics pause.
Well, this does tell us something about the nature of the designer then doesn't it?
The designer can not be the Christian God as described by almost all of His believers can it? It seems unlikely that the ID folks actually wanted to disprove the existance of the Christian God but that is a side effect of this QM idea.
The designer is clearly not omniscient is S/He/It? If He was the all observations have been made already. All wave functions are collapsed. Why then does the double slit experiment ever produce the interference result?
I wonder who or what the designer is then now that we have eliminated one popular possibility?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-29-2005 09:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:13 AM Limbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 213 (203622)
04-29-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 9:13 AM


quote:
However, I, unlike most of my fellow agnostics, am willing to listen to the other side, rather than merely read about the other side on Panda's Thumb or some other biased site.
Unbiased readers might like to compare this remark with Limbo's performance in this thread:
http://EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature -->EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:13 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 44 of 213 (203638)
04-29-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 9:13 AM


If the designer is the observer of quantum mechanics, then the act of observing the right place at the right time could be the mechanism.
That hardly constitutes a mechanism. Are you saying that the 'observer' can choose which point mutations occur? What large scale genomic rearrangements occur, can he use his observation to skew probability to such an extent that a whole irreducibly complex system can suddenly be created ex-nihilo?
Is there any reason to assume that there is any observing entity other than human consciousness? Where are the experiments performed in the absence of conscious human participation? I am reminded of a Greg Egan story 'Quarantine' in which the premise is that only humans can collapse wave functions and by doing so they are capable of damaging other entities with less limited perspectives on the universe. Sorry if I spoiled the story there for anyone reading it at the moment.
Is there any reason not to assume that everything outside of the universe we can observe either directly or indirectly is not one forever unresolved sea of probability?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:13 AM Limbo has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 213 (203652)
04-29-2005 12:05 PM


QM represents an object differently depending on whether it is being observed or not being observed...right? Whenever an object is not under observation, QM represent that object as a mathamatical "wave of probability", called the object's "wave function"...right? During the act of measurement, the mathematical description shifts...from a spread-out range of possible attributes (unmeasured object) to single-valued actual attributes (measured object). This sudden measurement-induced switch of descriptions is called "the collapse of the wave function"
What actually happens during a "wave collapse" is the biggest mystery in QM. Whether this shift in the mathematical description corresponds to an actual dislocation in the real world or is a purely mathematical quirk is the question. So...back to square one. No way to KNOW anything as of yet.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024