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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the underlying assumptions rig the debate
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 136 of 246 (323101)
06-19-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by PaulK
06-19-2006 2:18 AM


Re: general reply to all
I have already explicitly stated that according to your sources if the path information is knowable the superposition is collapsed. Thus the photon is forced to follow a single path.
So you admit to these basic observations in these experiments? Good.
Your view requires that a path a photon takes can be changed, retroactively, even when the path information is knowable.
No, that is not what I have said, nor suggested, and at this point we are just discussing causality, right? We can get into more implications after we get that straight. Suffice to say, that in real world actions, a photon may potentially be knowable and become unknowable and back again.
As I keep having to repeat the only change available is the change from a superposition of states to a single state, a changee that can only be reversed by erasing the information that would allow us to know the collapsed state .
So you admit the past for the photon is determined by the potential for present knowledge and in these experiences by a present event?
Yes or no?
You need a change from a collapsed state to a different collapsed state,
No, you don't, at least not to illustrate the present affecting the past. It is true you need this to occur, but that occurs as a process as we shall see later in this post.
You can get a different result only if you eliminate the information that would let you know the first result.
You need to think more carefully about that. Clearly, there is an affect on past behaviour by present events, right?
You were claiming that the past is completely fluid.
Yes and no. I claimed there were present events that have small impacts on the past, and over time, very long periods of time, those small changes add up and can, as it were, evolve the past into different states, and I suspect even evolve the time-line and present itself as well, and perhaps even split it into more than one time-line.
erasers - or rather the need for them - are a big problem for you.
Not at all. Quantum erasers help my case. You are making an assertion here but not backing it up.
So is the idea that the knowability of a photon's path - rather than actual observation - produces a collapse. Both of these make the past more difficult to change
Not really. You just haven't thought all this stuff out sufficiently. First off, we know a collapse is totally reversible, right? You claim, sure, but only if the information about the path the photon took is no longer decipherable, right?
But isn't the world such that this can be the case? In the examples with the polarizers, a photon takes a certain path more like a particle because the polarizers are set up such that we can tell what the photon did, but note that the second stage of the experiment set up a third polarizer scrambling that information, and the interference pattern reappeared. So it's quite possible that at one point, a photon could take a single route because at that point it is able to be determined what route it takes, but later down the road so to speak, the photon no longer and by no longer I mean even in it's past trajectory seen from the vantage point of the present, takes a single route, but takes all possible routes like a wave because the ability to know which way the photon went is no longer there.
So the quantum eraser experiment shows how the past is indeed changing, sometimes collapsing into one discrete area, and then that collapse is reversed, and appears to propagate in superposition.
The next collapse then, well, who knows if it will be the same? There is absolutely no reason to assume the collapse into one path will be the same path, and by this process, I have demonstrated here how indeed the past changes, or you could say is indeterminate by nature and non-static.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2006 2:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2006 3:04 AM randman has replied

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


Message 137 of 246 (323103)
06-19-2006 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
06-19-2006 2:40 AM


Re: general reply to all
It's time to go back to the OP.
Your example was that at one point death did not exist then Adam did something and as a consequence the past changed so that death DID exist.
The initial point cannot be a superposition of states including states where death does not exist. Otherwise you could not claim that death did not exist.
If it is a superposition of states excluding the possiblity of death then you are stuck. There's no way to change that.
So youmust be referring to a collapsed state - and therefore you need to somehow produce a superposition of states which does include the possiblity of death. And according to your own sources that requires erasing all the information that would allow us to determine whether death did or not exist in that past. This is why the issue of knowability and the requirement for quantum erasers hurts your case. (And contrary to your assertion I've explained why several times).
So how exactly is Adam supposed to do all that and then somehow produce the collapse which results in the presence of death ?
The same goes for any other significant change in the past. The evidence of that past has to be erased - rendered completely unavailable even in principle - before any such change can take place. According to your own sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 2:40 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 138 of 246 (323127)
06-19-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by randman
06-18-2006 9:04 PM


Re: for the lurkers wanting to get a handle on this
quote:
Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified.
Nothing wrong here...
quote:
'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.'
Ok, highlighted: there is sense... as in, yes it looks this way if we try to place our usual definitions of reality on things. But NOTHING ACTUALLY CHANGES. Wheeler does not believe the wave-function is changed. You seem to be confusing "wave" with "wave-function"... these are very different.
quote:
What Wheeler means is that the observer literally creates the universe by his observations.
NO. Wheeler said Observership. This can be by anything. It is interaction with other wave-functions. We call this decoherence. You do not need a conscious observer to create de-coherence (what you would call collapse). You just need environmental interaction.
Heck, some of these men wrote the equations cavediver alludes to, and they certainly saw some of the exact same implications as I have raised.
Oh my, Randman, you do set yourself up high. You see the danger of the internet? Suddenly you are discovering the "problems" of QM just like the great pioneers. I'm so impressed. Let me have your address. I'll send you an honary PhD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 9:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:48 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 139 of 246 (323128)
06-19-2006 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
06-19-2006 1:15 AM


Re: superluminality is a topic of research
From your own quotes:
quote:
What are the key arguments put forward against the possibility of superluminal signaling? Chiao and
Steinberg
analyze quantum tunneling experiments and tachyon-like excitations in laser media [24]. Even
though they find the evidence conclusive that the tunneling process is superluminal, and that tachyon-like
excitations in a population-inverted medium at frequencies close to resonance give rise to superluminal
wave packets, they argue that such phenomena can not be used for superluminal information transfer. In
their view, the group velocity can not be identified as the signal velocity of special relativity, a role they
attribute solely to Sommerfeld’s front velocity. In that context, Aharonov, Reznik, and Stern have shown
that the unstable modes, which play an essential role in the superluminal group velocity of analytical
wave packets, are strongly suppressed in the quantum limit as they become incompatible with unitary
time evolution [25].
quote:
Few scientists accept Nimtz's claim that a signal can be propagated faster than the speed of light.
End of story

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:15 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:22 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 140 of 246 (323129)
06-19-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by randman
06-18-2006 9:16 PM


Re: still no substance from you here
So you are now admitting that the wave-function operates in such a manner that a later measurement can affect it's behaviour prior to that measurement
No, of course not. Why would I ever admit such nonsense? QM contains no mechanism for this whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 9:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:14 PM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 141 of 246 (323170)
06-19-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
06-18-2006 11:29 PM


Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
Hi Randman,
This isn't to you, but to everyone else.
To everyone else,
Just because creationists often quote kooks and loons as if they were true scientists does not justify not doing due diligence. Concerning this paper from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/107480_.pdf), it would seem that there are scientists out there who are exploring the possibility of superluminal communication. Personally, I'm stunned. My understanding of how most scientists understand relativity and quantum theory is that this simply isn't theoretically possible, by which I mean the math disallows it.
I'd like to get a clear understanding about this. Just how far out on the fringe are these scientists? They seem to be following the principle that anything not explicitly disallowed is permitted, and they believe they have a theoretical perspective consistent with modern quantum theory that permits superluminal communication. At a minimum it would appear that acceptance of a speed limit is not as widespread as we've been maintaining.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 11:29 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 9:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 142 of 246 (323180)
06-19-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
06-17-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Event horizon
Randman writes:
Well, in my thinking, I actually think death was a latent ingredient in the system ans so perhaps that was not most precise description I gave earlier, but if we are talking about the Bible, regardless, God is something unaffected on one level by the system. He is an unchanging Substance.
Then is it fair to claim the Bible is a record of the system change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 5:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:00 PM Larni has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 143 of 246 (323185)
06-19-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
06-19-2006 9:09 AM


Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
it would seem that there are scientists out there who are exploring the possibility of superluminal communication.
Of course, there always have been. However, no-one has ever managed a repeatable demonstration of true information transfer at superluminal speeds. This sending of music that Randman refers to is not well regarded and most (as in pretty much all) scientists dismiss it. The superluminal guys have cried wolf so many times it is just not funny. How many New Scientist and Sci Am reports can you find over counteless years claiming superluminal transport, and what is there to show for it today? Nothing.
I have never said it is not possible, just that it is not possible within the framework of our current theories. Quantum mechanical entanglement is certainly NOT an example of a superluminal process, nor is anything else in QM.
As pointed out in the paper, non-linear extensions to QM introduce superluminal possibilities, but then trying to construct a sensible theory here is very difficult.
At the moment there is no danger that SR is going to be torn down, which is quite a good job as most of our advanced solid-state technology rests upon it to some degree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 06-19-2006 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-19-2006 1:21 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 144 of 246 (323192)
06-19-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Iblis
06-18-2006 2:24 AM


Re: more on delayed-choice experiments
Iblis writes:
The photon is always a wave, it is always a particle, it always enters through both slits, it only proves itself to be a particle AFTER it has demonstrated in one way or another that it is also a wave.
Does this mean it is a wave until it gets messed with?
Damn fine challenge try to keep up with this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Iblis, posted 06-18-2006 2:24 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Iblis, posted 06-19-2006 8:43 PM Larni has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 145 of 246 (323265)
06-19-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Larni
06-19-2006 9:27 AM


Re: Event horizon
Then is it fair to claim the Bible is a record of the system change?
A "record" is sort of strong language. I would say the Bible suggests or even states such a thing, but the principal purpose of the Bible is not to lay out scientific theories. Calling it a record of system change seems to suggest that would be it's purpose, and that's not the case.
I think the Bible gives clues or more than just clues at times on how God did things (such as the use of faith to create), but this can get us into the several new thread topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Larni, posted 06-19-2006 9:27 AM Larni has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 146 of 246 (323268)
06-19-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
06-19-2006 3:04 AM


Re: general reply to all
PaulK, you are jumping ahead too much. The example of interpreting the scripture to mean death did not exist is meant to be an example, but I will argue it as I think it's one of the valid interpretations.
First, I have shown one way that a superposition can exist; then not exist but instead a collapsed state, and then a superposition exists again, and that the quantum eraser shows that. Now, of course, we are dealing with a book and story, that if we are to accept it, contains God Almighty directly intevening and working, and so you really cannot assess the story's events ruling out God. What we can do is to assess current science and consider if there are clues in QM that can show how such somewhat instantenous changes might occur, and if they did occur, would they affect the past as well as the present.
I think there is some sense you may be missing things here. When Adam was alive and had not sinned, to say the universe then or now was fully in a collapsed state is probably wrong. The universe is today is not in fully collapsed state, and that's probably not the best way to describe the wave-function anyway, but we will keep doing so. The wave-function manifests in discrete form depending apparantly on what can be known about it.
With the introduction of the knowledge of good and evil, there would be for every new situation a new way to "know" something about it. One could view it more clearly from a moral perspective. This gets sort of deep and there is the issue that I believe they knew to eat the fruit was wrong, but regardless there are 2 salient points here.
1. The change in the waveform reacts based on whether something can be known about it.
2. With the eating of the knowledge of good and evil, a new level and intimacy of knowledge was obtained, and so with that new knowledge, there was something new that could be asked so to speak of everything, and that includes the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2006 3:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2006 1:50 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 147 of 246 (323270)
06-19-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
06-19-2006 6:53 AM


Re: still no substance from you here
Does the waveform span more than one segment of time simultaneously in your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 6:53 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 7:01 PM randman has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 148 of 246 (323272)
06-19-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by cavediver
06-19-2006 9:46 AM


Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
Cavediver,
I still have questions, though. ORNL is a top-notch and highly respected research facility, isn't it? Why are they engaged in things so far out on the fringe? It lends greater legitimacy to the speculations than they would seem to merit.
I don't have a perfect memory by any means, but I think I would have remembered any full article in New Scientist or SciAm seriously reporting possibilities of superluminal communications. Until Randman's ORNL reference, I hadn't seen the idea receive any serious consideration before. In fact, SciAm had an excellent article around 5 years ago explaining quite clearly why entanglement can't be used for the communication of information.
Randman,
There are a huge number of scientists out there. We can confidently state that science accepts Einstein's general theory of relativity, and the fact that some legitimate scientists reject some or all of general relativity does not alter the scientific concensus about relativity.
A scientific consensus that is broadly accepted also exists around quantum theory. Yes, there are scientists outside this consensus, but pointing to them and their work as evidence that we have the consensus wrong or that the consensus doesn't exist is just barking at the moon. You can walk into any bookstore or library and find book after book about quantum theory repeating the same things we're telling you here, because such books generally present the scientific mainstream. But while some of these books will contain sections on speculative ideas upon which there is no consensus, and some of the books may be entirely about such speculative ideas, it would be a serious mistake to conclude that the ideas are accepted within the mainstream. For that to happen they need a stronger theoretical and experimental foundation. To this point in time, the theoretical objections to suspension of causality are apparently extremely strong, and no experimental evidence for suspension of causality exists, either.
And there's nothing wrong with scientists working outside of or against the mainstream. It is important that the scientific mainstream be constantly challenged. But you're making the mistake of pointing to the speculative and fringe ideas and claiming they represent mainstream views. For example, you keep quoting Wheeler. Whether or not the quoted excerpts accurately reflect Wheeler's views, they are not in any way representative of the scientific mainstream.
I think it would serve your cause better if you made claims that when assessed by other people would be found to have merit. For example, you could quite correctly state that there is a small community of scientists who believe superluminal communication is possible, and taht they are conducting serious research into the idea. But people are unlikely to find any merit in the argument that because this community exists that therefore their ideas should be accepted as correct.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 9:46 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 1:36 PM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 149 of 246 (323273)
06-19-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by cavediver
06-19-2006 6:39 AM


Re: superluminality is a topic of research
Cavediver, so what? Obviously including the comments that others disagree with Chaio on that point meant that, in my own sources, I readily acknowledged that although Chaio believes superluminality is real in certain contexts, he is not ready to accept superluminal transfer of information.
Imo though, it's a matter of time. I think it may be more a matter of manipulation, and people like you will say that no information was transfered, just that the signals transferred are interpreted on the other end by people to develop that information, but it's gonna happen. Even now, one reason people say superluminal communication does not occur is that they say the time to interpret the data and call to confirm it takes too long.....as you can see though, something is "communicated" from a human perspective instantly.
Let me put it this way. It 2 entangled particles are some distance apart, and you want to know the spin of one, you can do a test, right, on the particle present with you, and wholla, you know instantly the information of the other. You may insist, and frankly I don't care if you do, that no information was "transferred", but it's somewhat semantics because you can know the state of the other item faster than it could be sent from that item to you.
I think this process can be developed via quantum computers to eventually be able to transfer whatever "state" something else is in from far away, and construct that state to reveal information instantly. You can say no transfer occurred, but so what? If the entangled particles are non-local, then the system exists in more than one place at once, and we should be able to from a human perspective transfer information superluminally due to the multi-positions of an entangled system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 6:39 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2006 3:36 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 150 of 246 (323280)
06-19-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
06-19-2006 1:21 PM


Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
Percy, many scientists like Feynman just said things like no one understands how it works, that it is too weird, etc,....There are a lot of scientists, true, but how many scientists are actually conducting experiments to test basic concepts in QM?
Not so many. One of them Zeilinger made the comment that "most physicists are extremely naive. They believe in real waves or particles." I think it's important to look at the experiments themselves and consider the statements of the scientists conducting them, and the group most dedicated to these issues.
I also think you don't realize how much in the mainstream some of the ideas I am discussing are. There is a reason book after book, article after article, web-sites by professors, etc, etc,...use language that the photon "seems to know" ahead of time, and then say no one knows for sure how this works. They don't really believe the photon knows anything, or most don't, but they don't want to word it differently and state a later action determines ahead of time the action of the photon, but that's what they are saying appears to occur. That is mainstream science.
Are they willing to say this violates causality? Some are like Wheeler, but most are just content to state like Feynman, that no one really understands it. What I would like some acknowledgement of though is that the experiments do indeed appear to show exactly what I am saying, that scientists do acknowledge that, and if you want me to admit that just a few consider the implications related to causality, fine, but the bottom line is QM and SR don't yet mix. They are not in full agreement; hence the search for the theory of everything.
Moreover, on the issue of entangelment and what occurs there, that is still an unknown. It appears to some that a system can exist, or part of it, apart from normal space and time. There is a reason Einstein called it "spooky action-at-distance" which from our vantage point is superluminal. The way that is gotten around is to say the seeming different particles are one system, but then you have a system that acts as one without any observable connections despite being separated by space. You tell me, but seems to me if the space barrier is being violated (it works and stays regardless of distance), then time is being violated as well since space and time are tied together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-19-2006 1:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 06-19-2006 2:09 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024