Quantum entanglement

[George-ananda]

I read what I could found about Goswami and found nothing about the science of Quantum Mechanics.

The new thinking you propose involves metaphysical assumptions concerning Quantum Mechanics as causes beyond the physical existence for which we have no objective verifiable evidence. It may be called new metaphysical "thinking," but it is not science.

There are no questions answered here unless a falsifiable hypothesis possible here. It amounts to speculation concerning the metaphysical.

Amit Goswami has a PhD in physics. Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years.

Got this from Wikipedia:

In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2]

Here's a quote from him:

"Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things -God and the world- but one thing, consciousness. […] The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a different monistic framework, one based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science. […] the new paradigm resolves many […] paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data."


My point in this discussion is the underpinnings of quantum behavior will require new thinking. And this is just an example of new thinking.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Amit Goswami has a PhD in physics. Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years.

Got this from Wikipedia:

In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2]

Here's a quote from him:

"Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things -God and the world- but one thing, consciousness. […] The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a different monistic framework, one based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science. […] the new paradigm resolves many […] paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data."


My point in this discussion is the underpinnings of quantum behavior will require new thinking. And this is just an example of new thinking.

Interesting to say the least!
I agree with a lot of things he says.
Unfortunately, the academic leaders in many fields of science are too entrenched in natural methodologies, to ever come around to ‘consciousness being the source of all existence.’ Basically due to what they consider lack of evidence… which is really only because they can’t test for it.
Maybe he will eventually convince a few…

 

[Polymath257]

Im in the same boat as you. Even when explained how it is supposed to work, it doesn't make huge sense to me.

Well, to truly understand it takes a fair amount of math. Anyone who has never solved a differential equation is getting at most glittering generalities and not deep understanding.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Well, to truly understand it takes a fair amount of math. Anyone who has never solved a differential equation is getting at most glittering generalities and not deep understanding.

Heh. So I wrote an (introductory) text on PDEs. Are you claiming that I should really be able to wrap my head around entanglement?

 

[Polymath257]

If anyone claims to truly understand this, they are mistaken/full of excrement.

Proving that quantum entanglement is real: Researcher answers questions about his historical experiments

In the 1930's when scientists, including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, first discovered the phenomenon of entanglement, they were perplexed. Entanglement, disturbingly, required two separated particles to remain connected without being in direct contact. Einstein famously called...

phys.org

A mind bending phenomenon.

OK, what is it that you want to understand about this? The results are in full agreement with the predictions of QM. They also falsify 'local realism': that things have definite properties at all times.

For example, an electron in certain experiments does NOT have a definite spin. It may have a 50% chance of being spin up and a 50% chance of being spin down. And that is the best description possible. If you make a measurement, there is a 50-50 chance either way.

Also, it isn't that the electron has a definite spin and we don't know it. It is possible to make electron beams with definite spin and mix them to get a 50-50 split between electrons with definite spin up and electrons with definite spin down. If, however, we make a beam that are all 50-50 spin up/spin down (indefinite), the two beams will have different properties (especially in interference effects).

If you made that electron along with another entangled electron in the right way, the two electrons are guaranteed to have opposite spins. But both *still* have a 50-50 chance of spin up or spin down. So neither electron in the pair has a definite spin, but they 8are* guaranteed to be opposite.

They key point is that ALL we have is probabilities and correlations. We do NOT have definite properties at all times. And that means that realism is simply false.

Yes, it is mind bending. It is counter to much of classical metaphysics. But that is my point: we *know* the universe works this way, so it is the metaphysics that is wrong, not the physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Heh. So I wrote an (introductory) text on PDEs. Are you claiming that I should really be able to wrap my head around entanglement?

Sure. I don't see why not. Have you looked at the math of entanglement? The point is that a solution to a certain PDE describing the pair is NOT simply a product of solutions for the individual particles, but is a linear combination of such. The existence of that linear combination is ALL that entanglement means.

So, if A(x) is a single electron solution saying the first particle has spin up, B(x) is one saying it has spin down, C(y) is one saying the second electron has spin up and D(y) says the second electron has spin down, then the appropriate solution for the *pair* is a constant multiple (normalization constant) of A(x)D(y)-B(x)C(y). In this, for the *pair*, the two electrons always have opposite spin, but each has equal probabilities of spin up and spin down. This is the wave function of a maximally entangled pair.

PS: the minus is a technical requirement because electrons are fermions. If we looked at bosons, it would be a plus.

A great deal of the 'mystery' of quantum mechanics is due to the fact that 'observables' are non-commuting operators in general. The possible values for an experiment are the eigenvalues of the operators. But, if the operators do not commute, the eigenfunctions for one will not be eigenfunctions of the other, (but it will be a linear combination of those eigenfunctions) which means that even if one measurement is definite, the other won't be.

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting to say the least!
I agree with a lot of things he says.
Unfortunately, the academic leaders in many fields of science are too entrenched in natural methodologies, to ever come around to ‘consciousness being the source of all existence.’ Basically due to what they consider lack of evidence… which is really only because they can’t test for it.
Maybe he will eventually convince a few…

If it can't be tested, it won't convince any scientists.

 

[Regiomontanus]

OK, what is it that you want to understand about this? The results are in full agreement with the predictions of QM. They also falsify 'local realism': that things have definite properties at all times.

For example, an electron in certain experiments does NOT have a definite spin. It may have a 50% chance of being spin up and a 50% chance of being spin down. And that is the best description possible. If you make a measurement, there is a 50-50 chance either way.

Also, it isn't that the electron has a definite spin and we don't know it. It is possible to make electron beams with definite spin and mix them to get a 50-50 split between electrons with definite spin up and electrons with definite spin down. If, however, we make a beam that are all 50-50 spin up/spin down (indefinite), the two beams will have different properties (especially in interference effects).

If you made that electron along with another entangled electron in the right way, the two electrons are guaranteed to have opposite spins. But both *still* have a 50-50 chance of spin up or spin down. So neither electron in the pair has a definite spin, but they 8are* guaranteed to be opposite.

They key point is that ALL we have is probabilities and correlations. We do NOT have definite properties at all times. And that means that realism is simply false.

Yes, it is mind bending. It is counter to much of classical metaphysics. But that is my point: we *know* the universe works this way, so it is the metaphysics that is wrong, not the physics.

"They key point is that ALL we have is probabilities and correlations. We do NOT have definite properties at all times. And that means that realism is simply false."

Right, as we understands thing now. Though I can't help but think there is an incompleteness here that we are currently blind to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Amit Goswami has a PhD in physics. Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years.

Got this from Wikipedia:

In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2]

Here's a quote from him:

"Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things -God and the world- but one thing, consciousness. […] The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a different monistic framework, one based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science. […] the new paradigm resolves many […] paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data."


My point in this discussion is the underpinnings of quantum behavior will require new thinking. And this is just an example of new thinking.

Science must be done if we are considering the physical nature of our universe in terms of physics and at the smallest scale Quantum Mechanics.

OK, he has a Phd in Physics, but his proposals do not involve the science of Physics or Quantum Mechanics. His proposal of Mystical belief are claims of metaphysical beliefs beyond science and not falsifiable by scientific methods. These claims of mystical Quantum Mechanics Conscious Universe and have been made in the past without consideration of Physics and Quantum Mechanics. I do not reject his 'beliefs off hand, but consider tham one of many proposals for the reality of our existence beyond the physical. I do not consider it new thinking as such because similar proposals have been made for a conscious universe like the Gaia Universe. I believe in God and believe in spiritual worlds beyond the physical, but I am skeptical and consider these as beliefs and not based on science or need degrees in science to confirm what are subjective claims.

 

[sayak83]

Sounds like you are agreeing with my point that new thinking should be welcomed.

I’ve heard ideas like from physicists like Amit Goswami that we might need to think in terms of top down causation. It all starts with non physical consciousness and higher planes of reality affect the denser planes as if playing out a grand thought. This effect from higher dimensions may appear to the physical as mysterious quantum behavior.

Now I’ll leave it to Goswami to explain that further but my point is new thinking should be welcomed.

Every explanation that brings in consciousness to explain Quantum is completely and entirely wrong and long debunked in science. Whatever metaphysics we develop for coherently understanding QM, consciousness based theories won't be it.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Sure. I don't see why not. Have you looked at the math of entanglement? The point is that a solution to a certain PDE describing the pair is NOT simply a product of solutions for the individual particles, but is a linear combination of such. The existence of that linear combination is ALL that entanglement means.

So, if A(x) is a single electron solution saying the first particle has spin up, B(x) is one saying it has spin down, C(y) is one saying the second electron has spin up and D(y) says the second electron has spin down, then the appropriate solution for the *pair* is a constant multiple (normalization constant) of A(x)D(y)-B(x)C(y). In this, for the *pair*, the two electrons always have opposite spin, but each has equal probabilities of spin up and spin down. This is the wave function of a maximally entangled pair.

PS: the minus is a technical requirement because electrons are fermions. If we looked at bosons, it would be a plus.

A great deal of the 'mystery' of quantum mechanics is due to the fact that 'observables' are non-commuting operators in general. The possible values for an experiment are the eigenvalues of the operators. But, if the operators do not commute, the eigenfunctions for one will not be eigenfunctions of the other, (but it will be a linear combination of those eigenfunctions) which means that even if one measurement is definite, the other won't be.

I appreciate your attention to detail but IMHO - just relax on the tutorials - or maybe just a link for those who do not understand the topic? Or not, knock yourself out. God bless.

 

[sayak83]

"They key point is that ALL we have is probabilities and correlations. We do NOT have definite properties at all times. And that means that realism is simply false."

Right, as we understands thing now. Though I can't help but think there is an incompleteness here that we are currently blind to.

No. It's mathematically proven and evidentially validated that No underlying definitive reality with definite properties can exist which can explain QM observations which also satisfies "no backward in time" or "faster than light" interactions.
So we can , in this one rare case, say that all possible explanations of the world where objects have definite properties have been disproved.

 

[George-ananda]

Every explanation that brings in consciousness to explain Quantum is completely and entirely wrong and long debunked in science. Whatever metaphysics we develop for coherently understanding QM, consciousness based theories won't be it.

How in the world can you know that?

And I’m sure many very smart people like Dr. Amit Goswami I discussed above take positions quite different than yours.

What explains your so dogmatic stance?

 

[Polymath257]

"They key point is that ALL we have is probabilities and correlations. We do NOT have definite properties at all times. And that means that realism is simply false."

Right, as we understands thing now. Though I can't help but think there is an incompleteness here that we are currently blind to.

And that is what Einstein thought as well. But actual experiments show that this is wrong.

Local hidden variable theories are ruled out by actual observations and Bell’s inequalities.

People have metaphysical intuitions, but actual observations show those intuitions are simply wrong.

I appreciate your attention to detail but IMHO - just relax on the tutorials - or maybe just a link for those who do not understand the topic? Or not, knock yourself out. God bless.

You asked. I have a short answer. If you have questions, just ask.

 

[Polymath257]

How in the world can you know that?

And I’m sure many very smart people like Dr. Amit Goswami I discussed above take positions quite different than yours.

What explains your so dogmatic stance?

Well, we have actual observations that rule out certain ideas. That isn’t dogmatism, it is reliance on evidence.

In spite of a LOT of popular articles, consciousness is NOT what determines the differences in QM. The movie “what the bleep to we know” is mostly trash. Sorry.

By the way, the issues of entanglement and quantum indeterminacy are central to quantum computers. What collapses the wave function is not consciousness. It is interaction with complex systems. And the systems do not have to be nearly as complex as our brains. Many times it can be as simple as a light or a few atoms hitting.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, we have actual observations that rule out certain ideas. That isn’t dogmatism, it is reliance on evidence.

In spite of a LOT of popular articles, consciousness is NOT what determines the differences in QM. The movie “what the bleep to we know” is mostly trash. Sorry.

By the way, the issues of entanglement and quantum indeterminacy are central to quantum computers. What collapses the wave function is not consciousness. It is interaction with complex systems. And the systems do not have to be nearly as complex as our brains. Many times it can be as simple as a light or a few atoms hitting.

Well I would let Goswami respond to your points and I am sure he is quite capable of defending his position.

As for me I’m on the Consciousness is non-physical side for reasons beyond quantum science.

 

[sayak83]

How in the world can you know that?

And I’m sure many very smart people like Dr. Amit Goswami I discussed above take positions quite different than yours.

What explains your so dogmatic stance?

Since I have taught quantum mechanics at the UG level in college and do some work in quantum chemistry, I have at least some level of competency in discerning what would be a good explanation and what would be a bad explanation. What I speak of is the general consensus of 99% of all scientists and philosophers in the field, and there is good reason for that. In the 1940-s, there was some confusion regarding what it means to say that "wave function collapses when an observation is made". Since observations are made by people, there was (even then a fringe) idea that somehow interference of the wavefunction with the mind causes the collapse. However, this problem was sorted out in the 1980-s with the development of quantum decoherence theories that are being extensively used in quantum information and cryptography nowadays. Quantum decoherence effectively generalizes the word "observation" to any physical interaction of the quantum system with the thermodynamic environment and that effectively destroys the superposition states and effective collapse of the wavefunction to classical property values. So, for example, the photon flux of the cosmic microwave background radiation itself would be enough even in the depths of empty space to cause the wave function collapse for a quantum system. So the problem itself (for which the mind was supposed to be the solution) has been resolved...like 20-30 years ago.
The mathematics and a more technical explanation is below.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306072.pdf

 

[George-ananda]

Since I have taught quantum mechanics at the UG level in college and do some work in quantum chemistry, I have at least some level of competency in discerning what would be a good explanation and what would be a bad explanation. What I speak of is the general consensus of 99% of all scientists and philosophers in the field, and there is good reason for that. In the 1940-s, there was some confusion regarding what it means to say that "wave function collapses when an observation is made". Since observations are made by people, there was (even then a fringe) idea that somehow interference of the wavefunction with the mind causes the collapse. However, this problem was sorted out in the 1980-s with the development of quantum decoherence theories that are being extensively used in quantum information and cryptography nowadays. Quantum decoherence effectively generalizes the word "observation" to any physical interaction of the quantum system with the thermodynamic environment and that effectively destroys the superposition states and effective collapse of the wavefunction to classical property values. So, for example, the photon flux of the cosmic microwave background radiation itself would be enough even in the depths of empty space to cause the wave function collapse for a quantum system. So the problem itself (for which the mind was supposed to be the solution) has been resolved...like 20-30 years ago.
The mathematics and a more technical explanation is below.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306072.pdf

My point is anything you may say would not be news to Dr. Amit Goswami and others, so I have to assume I'm getting your preference of interpretation.

Personally, I believe in non-physical consciousness going into this discussion from reasons other than quantum science (from paranormal evidence), so I'm more inclined to think Goswami is on the right track that Consciousness is fundamental and the material is derivative from Consciousness. It doesn't appear to work the other way around.

 

[sayak83]

My point is anything you may say would not be news to Dr. Amit Goswami and others, so I have to assume I'm getting your preference of interpretation.

Personally, I believe in non-physical consciousness going into this discussion from reasons other than quantum science (from paranormal evidence), so I'm more inclined to think Goswami is on the right track that Consciousness is fundamental and the material is derivative from Consciousness. It doesn't appear to work the other way around.

What is seen from the scientific community working in the field is that Goswami's theory is ideologically driven (like creationism) and has no scientific merit. Even 3 minutes of thinking would tell you why its totally absurd. Let us assume that you subscribe to the idea that reality becomes real when you consciously observe it. Suppose you are sleeping alone in a room and observing a dream world. Suddenly you wake up as the strong rays of the morning sun hits your eyes. By this ridiculous theory, the end of night, the rising of the sun and the hitting of the ray at your eyes were not real (i.e. did not become certainties through a wavefunction collapse) till you opened your eyes. So opening your eyes caused the night to end 2 hours before, the sun to rise up in the sky for the past two hours and then the suns rays to fall on your eyes. Now you have causal circularity. On one hand you woke up because the sun-rays hit your eyes....but on the other the sun rays hit your eyes because you woke up! What you get therefore is an elevated level of nonsense.
If you say...no no its the fundamental conscious substratum (Brahman) that is causing the wavefunction collapse, then Brahman is everywhere and everywhen. Is the fundamental conscious substratum "looking away" during the time of the superposition and looking in just when the wavefunction collapses on a detector?? Suppose the Brahman forgets to look? Then will my detector suddenly not detect or what? That too is nonsense.
Beware of theories that conform to your existing predispositions. Those are the ones that one is most gullible about.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is seen from the scientific community working in the field is that Goswami's theory is ideologically driven (like creationism) and has no scientific merit. Even 3 minutes of thinking would tell you why its totally absurd. Let us assume that you subscribe to the idea that reality becomes real when you consciously observe it. Suppose you are sleeping alone in a room and observing a dream world. Suddenly you wake up as the strong rays of the morning sun hits your eyes. By this ridiculous theory, the end of night, the rising of the sun and the hitting of the ray at your eyes were not real (i.e. did not become certainties through a wavefunction collapse) till you opened your eyes. So opening your eyes caused the night to end 2 hours before, the sun to rise up in the sky for the past two hours and then the suns rays to fall on your eyes. Now you have causal circularity. On one hand you woke up because the sun-rays hit your eyes....but on the other the sun rays hit your eyes because you woke up! What you get therefore is an elevated level of nonsense.
If you say...no no its the fundamental conscious substratum (Brahman) that is causing the wavefunction collapse, then Brahman is everywhere and everywhen. Is the fundamental conscious substratum "looking away" during the time of the superposition and looking in just when the wavefunction collapses on a detector?? Suppose the Brahman forgets to look? Then will my detector suddenly not detect or what? That too is nonsense.
Beware of theories that conform to your existing predispositions. Those are the ones that one is most gullible about.

In making this argument, it seems to me you confuse personal, subjective consciousness, with universal consciousness. “We are each facets of a consciousness, experiencing life subjectively”, is a phrase I heard from a friend’s not very religious Indian father.

I think his observation goes to the heart of conversations about consciousness. There certainly have been scientists as well as philosophers and theologians who were at least willing to consider the possibility that consciousness maybe fundamental, or at least key to understanding the universe (see Bohm, Wheeler, Fuchs, Penrose from theoretical physics).

That our experience of all of reality is subjective, means this also applies to our experience of consciousness itself. But to limit our conception of reality to our experience of it, is to close the door on a universe of possibility.

One point remains inarguable; that all of our experience, all our learning, insight, knowledge, all our arguments and all our observations, take place at the level of consciousness. In that sense consciousness is absolutely the most fundamental phenomenon in the universe as it revealed to us.

Apologies for taking this thread off topic.