Quantum entanglement

[sayak83]

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.

It is entirely possible that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality (which I actually believe) and that Quantum phenomena do not have any special relationship to this fact. If you notice, my argument's second part does talk about the inconsistency that comes when trying to use universal consciousness for wave function collapse....namely if universal consciousness is behind it, it's present everywhere...then how could there have been an uncollapsed wave function in the first place?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Why would you think that Goswami has even looked at quantum decoherence? That he has a PhD is not all that impressive, frankly.

Considering that there is nothing at arxiv.org from an author of Amit Goswami, mostof his work seems to be from the 1990's and all of that was, shall we say, ignored by professionals, makes him a crank and not anyone worth actually quoting. That his more recent book has a forward from Deepak Chopra is not encouraging either.

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.

You can certainly believe what you want. But, for *physics*, the question is what the evidence shows and what observations can and have tested the ideas. For Goswami, he seems to have made his mark publishing garbage to the masses. Unfortunately, this happens more often than you might think.

 

[Polymath257]

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).

I would point out that all of these people did their work before the development of our current understanding of quantum decoherence (which has been tested and actually works). Sorry, but consciousness is NOT required for wave function collapse.

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.

Well, of course. As I see it, this is our primary *limitation*: that we can only obtain information from our senses and process such without (imperfect) brains. As I see it, this is NOT a fundamental aspect of the universe, but simply one of our handicaps in learning about the universe: epistemology as opposed to ontology.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Thanks for this reference. I had read Zurek's original paper, but this looks like it might be very interesting as an update.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I think you might be misunderstanding. I don't think that Goswami would say the sun didn't rise until I opened my eyes. I've heard it discussed before and I think they are getting at that we are part of collective conscious too that inhabit one environment as other humans, animals, vegetation and minerals. I'd have to do some research to find a better description.

 

[George-ananda]

Why would you think that Goswami has even looked at quantum decoherence? That he has a PhD is not all that impressive, frankly.

Are you aware that he has written college textbooks on Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics
Second Edition
Amit Goswami
In an effort to excite college seniors and first-year graduate students about the essence of quantum mechanics, Goswami always begins a topic with what students know before moving into more complex areas. He teaches students how to ask the right questions, satisfying their interest in the meaning and interpretation of quantum mechanics, and treats the nitty-gritty details carefully. The unifying approach of the book presents quantum mechanics not only as a schema for successful calculations and predictions but also as a basis for a new and exciting worldview. The most unique aspect of the book is an ongoing presentation of the radicalness of quantum mechanics as compared to classical physics.
Reactions
“I really liked the way this text is written, with the worked-out examples and problems at the end of the chapters that students can follow.” — Maia Magrakvelidze, University of Mary Washington
Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to the Schrödinger Equation
2. The Motion of Wave Packets
3. Schrödinger Equation as Eigenvalue-Eigenfunction Equation
4. The Solution of the Schrödinger Equation in One Dimension
5. Looking through the Heisenberg-Bohr Microscope
6. The Dirac Description of Quantum Mechanical States
7. The One-Dimensional Harmonic Oscillator
8. Equations of Motion and Classical Correspondence
9. Systems of Two Degrees of Freedom
10. Quantum Paradoxes and the Copenhagen Interpretation
11. Angular Momentum
12. Motion in Central Potential
13. The Hydrogen Atom
14. Electrons in the Electromagnetic Field
15. Spin and Matrices
16. Matrix Mechanics: Two-State Systems
17. The Addition of Angular Momenta
18. Approximation Methods for Stationary States
19. Quantum Systems: Atoms with One and Two Electrons
20. Quantum Systems: Atoms and Molecules
21. Quantum Systems: Fermi and Bose Gases
22. Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory and Application to Atomic Radiation and Scattering
23. Scattering Theory
24. The Unfinished Chapter: The Meaning and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Appendix. The Delta Function

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think you might be misunderstanding. I don't think that Goswami would say the sun didn't rise until I opened my eyes. I've heard it discussed before and I think they are getting at that we are part of collective conscious too that inhabit one environment as other humans, animals, vegetation and minerals. I'd have to do some research to find a better description.

Philosophically, this is a holistic (or Monist) as opposed to pluralistic perspective. To the pluralist the world is populated by discrete entities, interacting through contact. To the monist, everything is connected. Once you adopt the latter as a default view of the world, all distinctions - for instance those between the object, the observer, and the act of observation - become arbitrary. Within that paradigm, it becomes meaningless to talk about an objective reality that exists independently of the conscious observer.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you aware that he has written college textbooks on Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics
Second Edition
Amit Goswami
In an effort to excite college seniors and first-year graduate students about the essence of quantum mechanics, Goswami always begins a topic with what students know before moving into more complex areas. He teaches students how to ask the right questions, satisfying their interest in the meaning and interpretation of quantum mechanics, and treats the nitty-gritty details carefully. The unifying approach of the book presents quantum mechanics not only as a schema for successful calculations and predictions but also as a basis for a new and exciting worldview. The most unique aspect of the book is an ongoing presentation of the radicalness of quantum mechanics as compared to classical physics.
Reactions
“I really liked the way this text is written, with the worked-out examples and problems at the end of the chapters that students can follow.” — Maia Magrakvelidze, University of Mary Washington
Table of Contents
1. An Introduction to the Schrödinger Equation
2. The Motion of Wave Packets
3. Schrödinger Equation as Eigenvalue-Eigenfunction Equation
4. The Solution of the Schrödinger Equation in One Dimension
5. Looking through the Heisenberg-Bohr Microscope
6. The Dirac Description of Quantum Mechanical States
7. The One-Dimensional Harmonic Oscillator
8. Equations of Motion and Classical Correspondence
9. Systems of Two Degrees of Freedom
10. Quantum Paradoxes and the Copenhagen Interpretation
11. Angular Momentum
12. Motion in Central Potential
13. The Hydrogen Atom
14. Electrons in the Electromagnetic Field
15. Spin and Matrices
16. Matrix Mechanics: Two-State Systems
17. The Addition of Angular Momenta
18. Approximation Methods for Stationary States
19. Quantum Systems: Atoms with One and Two Electrons
20. Quantum Systems: Atoms and Molecules
21. Quantum Systems: Fermi and Bose Gases
22. Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory and Application to Atomic Radiation and Scattering
23. Scattering Theory
24. The Unfinished Chapter: The Meaning and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Appendix. The Delta Function

This is a fairly standard selection of topics for a QM textbook. The original was written in 1991 with a second edition in 2003. I'll see if I can find a copy and see how it is otherwise.

But, it doesn't answer whether he has looked at quantum decoherence, which is NOT one of the topics in this book.

 

[George-ananda]

This is a fairly standard selection of topics for a QM textbook. The original was written in 1991 with a second edition in 2003. I'll see if I can find a copy and see how it is otherwise.

But, it doesn't answer whether he has looked at quantum decoherence, which is NOT one of the topics in this book.

My point was that even little I have seen quantum decoherence discussed before (not that I can explain/understand it that well). But my point is how could then someone like Goswami have not looked into it and incorporated it into his understanding? Your argument seems hard to accept.

 

[George-ananda]

Philosophically, this is a holistic (or Monist) as opposed to pluralistic perspective. To the pluralist the world is populated by discrete entities, interacting through contact. To the monist, everything is connected. Once you adopt the latter as a default view of the world, all distinctions - for instance those between the object, the observer, and the act of observation - become arbitrary. Within that paradigm, it becomes meaningless to talk about an objective reality that exists independently of the conscious observer.

So, I think you are trying to say @sayak83 was misunderstanding Goswami in his sunrise example by taking a pluralistic perspective where Goswami takes a Monist perspective?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So, I think you are trying to say @sayak83 was misunderstanding Goswami in his sunrise example by taking a pluralistic perspective where Goswami takes a Monist perspective?

Well I'm not familiar with Goswami or his arguments, but I see a wider issue here that is pertinent not only to QM, but to every asect of our understanding of the world; there is an overlap here with what has been called (by the philosopher David Chalmers) the Hard Problem of Consciousness. In QM, in cosmology, in neuroscience (see Giulio Tononi - Wikipedia) and in the philosophy of mind, we return again and again to the issue of perpective, and the role of the observer.

Whilst it may be that in QM, observation is interaction, and any interaction between the quantum and macroscopic worlds accounts in some way for the measurement problem, philosophically this only kicks the can down the road. Because while the collapse of a superposition may not be dependent on consciousness, for any phenomenon to be hypothesised, measured or observed, a conscious agent is by definition an absolute requirement. But for as long as we consider ourselves and the world external to ourselves, as completely seperate entities, confusion will always ultimately arise; because it's fairly well established in both science and philosophy, that we have no way of observing the world neutrally, as it would be were we not there to observe it. This frustrating barrier to understanding however, melts away when we consider our consciousness to be woven irrevocably into the fabric of the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

Nobody disputes the observational data regarding quantum events, so most of the discussion is about how to interpret the data. One way to do that is through the filter of mathematics, but symbolic representations are just another way of describing the data that we observe. How do we explain it in layman's terminology?

One physicist who I think is very good at doing that is Sean M Carroll, who has written a fairly well-received book on the subject called Something Deeply Hidden. What is commendable about the book is that it attempts to avoid delving into the mathematics and just focus on the various metaphorical interpretations that people have come up with to explain quantum behavior. Carroll himself favors the Many Worlds interpretation that Hugh Everett first proposed in the 1950s and which enjoys some popularity among theoretical physicists. So much of the book is devoted to a defense of that interpretation as the most sensible way to interpret observations, but Carroll also discusses the pros and cons of other interpretations. The nature of entanglement is at the heart of his discussion, so it addresses the thread topic in a way that I found satisfying. Others may not. In any case, it is a thought-provoking book.

 

[Polymath257]

My point was that even little I have seen quantum decoherence discussed before (not that I can explain/understand it that well). But my point is how could then someone like Goswami have not looked into it and incorporated it into his understanding? Your argument seems hard to accept.

I found a copy of his second edition. Funny that he didn’t mention consciousness at all. It is a very standard early graduate textbook. Only error correction from the first edition, no new material.

My guess is that Gossami stopped doing physics in the early 1990s and started playing to the mystic crowd for money.

 

[George-ananda]

I found a copy of his second edition. Funny that he didn’t mention consciousness at all. It is a very standard early graduate textbook. Only error correction from the first edition, no new material.

My guess is that Gossami stopped doing physics in the early 1990s and started playing to the mystic crowd for money.

He is certainly very active past that point. But, subjectively, you would probably disparage those activities that he feels the need to promote.

From the Wikipedia article:

Fully retired as a faculty member since 2003, he is now engaged in far–reaching national and international speaking engagements. He teaches fairly regularly at the Ernest Holmes Institute, the Philosophical Research University in L.A.; Pacifica in Santa Barbara, CA; and UNIPAZ in Portugal, and is a member of the advisory board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was a senior scholar in residence during 1998 to 2000.

 

[Polymath257]

He is certainly very active past that point. But, subjectively, you would probably disparage those activities that he feels the need to promote.

From the Wikipedia article:

Fully retired as a faculty member since 2003, he is now engaged in far–reaching national and international speaking engagements. He teaches fairly regularly at the Ernest Holmes Institute, the Philosophical Research University in L.A.; Pacifica in Santa Barbara, CA; and UNIPAZ in Portugal, and is a member of the advisory board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was a senior scholar in residence during 1998 to 2000.

In other words, he quit doing physics and makes his money selling his ideas.

 

[George-ananda]

In other words, he quit doing physics and makes his money selling his ideas.

I've read a bit more and I don't think he's doing this for the money, but I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Polymath257]

I've read a bit more and I don't think he's doing this for the money, but I understand where you are coming from.

All I know is that he is peddling pseudoscience.

 

[wellwisher]

For those that are not sure what it is:
Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space.

I don't get it, but maybe someone can help

How do they know that they are connected?

I could understand it, if this was done in a small box and they had particle A and B and then they could experiment on them. But there are trillions of particles, so how would they know that A is connected to B which is billions of light years away?

We live in space-time where time and space operate together, like two people running in a three legged race. The tether of the three legged race, limits both people, to less than their full potential in a foot race. They have to work together, or else they will slow down even more or stumble.

Entangled particles in space-time are hard to explain with space-time based phenomena, since they need to be in communication to work together, with the speed of light being the speed limit, at which they can communicate. Entangled particles appear to display a behavior that exceeds the common sense limits of the three legged race of space-time. They appear to run the 100 meters in 10 seconds, which is impossible with those tethered constraints, no matter how much you practice.

The work around is to assume that there is not just tethered space-time, which we all know and love, but that space and time can also exist, unconnected; separated space and separated time. This state of separated space and separated time removes the tether of the three legged race, and allows both variables, to run their own race.

In the case of the three legged race without the tether, one person may be able to run 100meter in 10 seconds, but cannot do this when tethered to someone who can only run it in 12 seconds. However, if they were separated, one a part of the team could run the 100meters in 10 seconds for the team.

If you could move in time, apart from space, you could synchronize particles in time, without any space constraint; entangled particles anywhere in space. If you could move in space, apart from time, you could be omnipresent. The quantum world has many proofs of separated space and separated time, that current theory does not yet understand that outside the light of tethered space-time.

If we used distance potential first; separated space; to separate the particles in space apart from time; omnipresent placement across the universe, and then we go back to time potential; synchronized in time apart from space, we have the scenario of this forum topic. Occam's Razor; the simplest solution is the best. No new variables are added, just the tether is removed; two independent yet simultaneous affects.

 

[Polymath257]

We live in space-time where time and space operate together, like two people running in a three legged race. The tether of the three legged race, limits both people, to less than their full potential in a foot race. They have to work together, or else they will slow down even more or stumble.

Entangled particles in space-time are hard to explain with space-time based phenomena, since they need to be in communication to work together, with the speed of light being the speed limit, at which they can communicate. Entangled particles appear to display a behavior that exceeds the common sense limits of the three legged race of space-time. They appear to run the 100 meters in 10 seconds, which is impossible with those tethered constraints, no matter how much you practice.

I would emphasize the word *appear* here. It is NOT the case, in QM that those entangled particles are communicating. The *correlation* between the particles is established when they are formed and continues until the measurements.

Here is a classical analogy (being classical, it is imperfect, but it serves to illustrate the point).

Suppose you have a coin that can be split, separating the head and the tail. Suppose you flip that coin, separate the head and tail (without looking at the coin) and send them off in different directions. If one person looks at one of the halves and, say, sees a head, they immediately know that someone who looks at the other half will see a tail. There is no communication between the two people. But one person looking 'collapses the possibilities' of what the other person can see.

This is NOT 'faster than light' transfer of information. The correlation between the two pieces was established when the coin was flipped and separated. Yet the values at the two ends are always exactly the opposite.

The main difference between this classical example and a quantum example is that, in the classical case, each piece has a definite (but unknown) value of head or tail. In a quantum situation, each piece is in a superposition state and so is 50-50 head or tail. But the correlation between the values at the two ends remains. if one side sees a head, the other side sees a tail. Again, this is NOT instantaneous communication: the correlation was made when the particles were formed and entangled.

The true 'paradox' of quantum mechanics is precisely its lack of 'realism': there are many situations where a particle simply doesn't have a definite value for some property, but only a probability for a range of values.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would emphasize the word *appear* here. It is NOT the case, in QM that those entangled particles are communicating. The *correlation* between the particles is established when they are formed and continues until the measurements.

Here is a classical analogy (being classical, it is imperfect, but it serves to illustrate the point).

Suppose you have a coin that can be split, separating the head and the tail. Suppose you flip that coin, separate the head and tail (without looking at the coin) and send them off in different directions. If one person looks at one of the halves and, say, sees a head, they immediately know that someone who looks at the other half will see a tail. There is no communication between the two people. But one person looking 'collapses the possibilities' of what the other person can see.

This is NOT 'faster than light' transfer of information. The correlation between the two pieces was established when the coin was flipped and separated. Yet the values at the two ends are always exactly the opposite.

The main difference between this classical example and a quantum example is that, in the classical case, each piece has a definite (but unknown) value of head or tail. In a quantum situation, each piece is in a superposition state and so is 50-50 head or tail. But the correlation between the values at the two ends remains. if one side sees a head, the other side sees a tail. Again, this is NOT instantaneous communication: the correlation was made when the particles were formed and entangled.

The true 'paradox' of quantum mechanics is precisely its lack of 'realism': there are many situations where a particle simply doesn't have a definite value for some property, but only a probability for a range of values.

I thought Bell’s Inequality ruled out historic correlation?