Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The implications of quantum physics.
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 14 of 39 (340719)
08-17-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
08-17-2006 1:52 AM


Re: General questions for whoever....
randman writes:
If measuring a particle causes the collapse into a definite state, then the entangled particle exists either in an undetermined state before the measurement, or is affected by the collapse instantly so that we see "spooky action at a distance" in a manner violating causality, right?
I think it's not "either/or" the way you describe it. Quantum mechanics has it that the entangled particles exist in an undetermined state AND collapse into a definite state upon observation of one of them. If quantum mechanics is right, it's undetermined states AND spooky action.
It's the 'undetermined' part that's causing the confusion for most people. If someone tells you they had two marbles, one black and one white, and then tells you they've shot one into space and shows you the remaining one, which is black, then you logically deduce that the marble in space is white. You have no reason to assume that before you observed the black marble, the colour of either marble was 'undetermined'. The one in space was white all the time.
A pair of entangled particles is like the pair of marbles in that the measured quality must have opposite values in each of them. But unlike the colour of the marbles, the qualities quantum mechanics deals with are believed to be intrinsically undetermined until they are measured. This means that a measurement of one of them somehow affects the state of the other, not just by logical extension, but in a physical way. And it doesn't matter how far away it is. Hence "spooky action at a distance".
I realize I don't need to tell you this, Randman, you know all this. But it was the confusing way you described it that prompted me to write this.
There's another confusing bit in your post:
despite the mountain of evidence demonstrating such violations of causality, it seems the scientific community is loathe to depart from the concept. My first question is why?
I don't understand your question. If there is a lot of evidence for a concept, why would it be strange that science does not want to abandon it? Does either of us misunderstand the meaning of the word 'loathe'?
With regard to you second question, I think it all comes down to what we mean by 'observe'. I think the term should be applied very loosely, in that a collision between two particles can be called an 'observation' in a quantum-mechanical sense, without the involvement of humans - or any other conscious beings for that matter.
What do you mean by "subluminal"? If you mean 'subliminal', then I still don't understand what you are getting at. Could you please explain?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 1:52 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 1:11 PM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 20 of 39 (340881)
08-17-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
08-17-2006 1:11 PM


Re: General questions for whoever....
There is evidence demonstrating a "violation of causality." It's easy to skip the violation part of the phrase.
Now I understand what you meant. But I did not skip the word 'violation'. Instead, I misunderstood what you meant with "the concept". I thought you meant the concept of the violation of causality. But you meant the concept of (inviolable) causality itself.
However, I think that if quantum mechanics entails violations of causality, and if there is evidence for it, then scientists will not hang on to causality no matter what. They will go where the evidence leads them.
There does seem to have to be somewhere, even in the future or background, an observer or potential observer, but I agree that there does not have to be a measurement by a conscious observer in the present to cause the particle to take on discrete and specific form
I think there doesn't have to be a conscious observer at all. After all, we've only been in the universe a fraction of a second on a twenty-four hour scale. What happened to all those undetermined states before consciousness arose in the universe? Did they remain undetermined for aeons and aeons, waiting to be observed until we came along?
The words 'observation' and 'measurement' have connotations with consciousness, but that's just language. I think an observation, or a measurement, can just as easily be constituted by any form of interaction that demands that the wave function collapses. If a particle flies through space without interacting with anything, it may stay undetermined. But as soon as it interacts with something, be it a photon, another particle, or whatever, the interaction causes the wave function to collapse.
What do you mean by "subluminal"?
I mean the opposite of superluminal. Subluminal may or may not be a word, but I just mean all the universe that exists under the speed of light (and really need to qualify that to include the universe at the speed of light as well). In other words, I think there are dimensions of reality, whether one wants to call them spiritual or extra dimensions within string theory or whatever, but they are non-observed, at least directly, and perhaps we should separate the universe within and at the speed of light that we can observe from the other parts of the universe.
I see. But in my opinion you don't need to pose extra dimensions for that purpose. Whatever part of space is so far away that its light can never overtake the expansion of the universe, such part can never be observed by us. But logically and mathematically, it's the same kind of space as our own part of the universe, and has the same kind of dimensions.
At least, that's what I think.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-17-2006 1:11 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 21 of 39 (340882)
08-17-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
08-17-2006 2:20 PM


Re: General questions for whoever....
GDR writes:
It also occurs to me that when Parasomium talks about a collision between particles being an observation I wonder how it is she can know that when she couldn't have observed it. We can only see the results when at some point there was consciousness involved.
See my reply to Randman.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 08-17-2006 2:20 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024