Wave-particle duality suggests something extra to perception

[exchemist]

I thought I would chime in on this.

You've rightly referred to God as an external agency, rarely internal unless the conditions are right depending on who or what serves as a "supernatural beacon". This could be a high-frequency consciousness i.e. an excited state of consciousness, but never the ordinary natural world. Since the wavefunction itself is the key feature of supernatural phenomenon.

Apparently, the wavefunction, while suspended, can be collapsed by mere thought. And each thought through time collapses this wavefunction repeatedly. That means if you have a paranoia or suspicious fear (while thinking it) that you are a "supernatural beacon" and someone in the unseen world outside your door will try to enter your room to aggressively confront you and they suddenly start banging on your door with no indication of telepathy or thought transference, the wavefunction is in full operation by the excited state of consciousness, which dictates its behavior. This is known more scientifically as "Maxwell's Demon".

Oh you did, did you? I thought we'd be lucky to get away without another injection of cobblers from you.

Just for any other readers, thought can't collapse a wave function and Maxwell's Demon has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently, the wavefunction, while suspended, can be collapsed by mere thought.

Would you care to give a reference for this?

This is known more scientifically as "Maxwell's Demon".

No, actually, it isn't. Maxwell's demon is a very different thing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In the standard scientific experiment of wave-particle duality, photons of light build up a pattern of light and dark bands as if wave-like interference was occurring as the photon passes through the two slits.

1) The double-slit experiment is not a "standard scientific experiment of wave-particle duality" nor does it require photons. Wave-particle duality is, for the most part, an unfortunate relic that remains due to the overwhelming influence on standard textbook quantum mechanics as well as an older generation of physicists that Bohr had. Few have adopted his actual philosophy underlying the notion (complementarity), and even his and Heisenberg's (disparate) views underlying the Copenhagen interpretation and the supposed impossibility of a quantum world beyond a classical description have long been questioned and often rejected.
2) The photon doesn't pass through the slits. It actually isn't necessary in the description of the entire process apart from the registration of an excitation (mode) of the quantized electromagnetic energy by the detector. Actually, as it is only the relative phases of the (electric/electromagnetic) field operators via linear superposition that is relevant phenomenologically to the experiment, the whole notion of photons is unnecessary except as a linguistic aid to a blurry understanding.
3) This experiment has been simulated famously using the Bohmian formulation, which does involve definite trajectories rather than the lip-service to Bohrian duality. It has also been successfully explained in terms of the GRW approach. Even in standard quantum mechanics, the only actual component of the theory relevant to the interference pattern that comes into play here in an odd way is the fact that the probabilities for detection at various locations is obtained successfully by summing the probabilities derived from the amplitudes (this is actually where the interference term comes from).

This is supernatural science at its finest.

Why? It is entirely predictable. Generally, when people refer to the supernatural, they have trouble when it comes to empirical support because almost by definition that which is supernatural cannot be derived from repeated, replicable, and variously implemented experiments that are explained by (or at least understood in terms of) well-worn and tested physical theories.

As it suggests that something extra to what can be perceived is causing the interference.

Fields in general can't be perceived. This is true of classical fields.

In the 1970s technology became sophisticated enough that detectors were used to determine which slit the photon passed through.

This is not true. It was always possible to determine which slit the photon or electron or whatever passed through. The problem was that knowledge of the path destroys the interference effect.

This phenomenon led to the development of the many-worlds theory

This was developed about 20 years earlier in the 50s by a PhD student of Wheeler's who disliked the of the added structure of thee collapse postulate (or any such discontinuous "jump") imposed on the unitary evolution of quantum systems.

 

[Ostronomos]

Would you care to give a reference for this?



No, actually, it isn't. Maxwell's demon is a very different thing.

Here is a paper written by Chalmers on wavefunction collapse and consciousness (or its influence) last year: http://consc.net/papers/collapse.pdf

 

[Polymath257]

Aren’t most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics pretty close to miraculous? Examples being the aforementioned multiverse theory, super-determinism, particulate entanglement etc?

“I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics” - Richard Feynman

I think the basic problem is that people want to 'understand' it by use of classical concepts. Thinking that things like electrons have definite locations and definite properties at all times is the basic mistake. Thinking that particles only move along one path (as opposed to *all* paths) is a basic mistake. That just isn't how the universe works.

Particle entanglement is a simple, observed, fact. It means there is a correlation between the probabilities of observations at two different locations. It is mysterious only if you hold to the notions of classical physics and classical philosophy. Because we tend to think classically, that means we have to change the way we think.

Feynman had a point: if you want to think of particles as little spheres with definite properties, you will fail to understand quantum mechanics.

But, frankly, people also find the physics of classical rotating bodies to be counter-intuitive. All that means is that the inituition needs to be educated.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is a paper written by Chalmers on wavefunction collapse and consciousness (or its influence) last year: http://consc.net/papers/collapse.pdf

Sorry, Chalmers isn't a physicist. He is a philosopher. And, frankly, he isn't qualified to speak on this particular issue.

Chalmers has some very interesting ideas, but I think he is ultimately wrong. I think that Dennett is much closer to the truth.

Can you give any *actual data* that shows that thoughts can collapse wave functions or alter probabilities?

 

[exchemist]

Sorry, Chalmers isn't a physicist. He is a philosopher. And, frankly, he isn't qualified to speak on this particular issue.

Chalmers has some very interesting ideas, but I think he is ultimately wrong. I think that Dennett is much closer to the truth.

Can you give any *actual data* that shows that thoughts can collapse wave functions or alter probabilities?

Incidentally I came across this, which you might find amusing, in the circumstances.
C. H. Woo, Consciousness and quantum interference: An experimental approach - PhilPapers

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think the basic problem is that people want to 'understand' it by use of classical concepts. Thinking that things like electrons have definite locations and definite properties at all times is the basic mistake. Thinking that particles only move along one path (as opposed to *all* paths) is a basic mistake. That just isn't how the universe works.

Particle entanglement is a simple, observed, fact. It means there is a correlation between the probabilities of observations at two different locations. It is mysterious only if you hold to the notions of classical physics and classical philosophy. Because we tend to think classically, that means we have to change the way we think.

Feynman had a point: if you want to think of particles as little spheres with definite properties, you will fail to understand quantum mechanics.

But, frankly, people also find the physics of classical rotating bodies to be counter-intuitive. All that means is that the inituition needs to be educated.

So understanding quantum physics requires a paradigm shift; an alteration in consciousness akin to what mystics might call a Spiritual Awakening?

You probably won’t want to use that term; see it as a metaphor if you like.

There is a point at which physics and philosophy overlap, indeed there as a point at which all disciplines overlap; as any Classical or Renaissance scholar will testify.

 

[Polymath257]

So understanding quantum physics requires a paradigm shift; an alteration in consciousness akin to what mystics might call a Spiritual Awakening?

I don't see it as being as much an alteration of consciousness as being a change of intuitions and fundamental notions.

You probably won’t want to use that term; see it as a metaphor if you like.

Understood. I'll take it as saying we have to re-think quite a few of the notions our philosophies have been based upon.

There is a point at which physics and philosophy overlap, indeed there as a point at which all disciplines overlap; as any Classical or Renaissance scholar will testify.

Yes, indeed. And I think the most productive interaction at this point would be if philosophers adapt to the new information by changing/discarding outmoded ideas. Classical metaphysics makes many assumptions that are now *known* to be wrong. that means a complete re-thinking of metaphysics is going to be required. As I see it, way too many philosophers are stuck in Aristotelian thought-processes and need to update to take into consideration relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see it as being as much an alteration of consciousness as being a change of intuitions and fundamental notions.



Understood. I'll take it as saying we have to re-think quite a few of the notions our philosophies have been based upon.




Yes, indeed. And I think the most productive interaction at this point would be if philosophers adapt to the new information by changing/discarding outmoded ideas. Classical metaphysics makes many assumptions that are now *known* to be wrong. that means a complete re-thinking of metaphysics is going to be required. As I see it, way too many philosophers are stuck in Aristotelian thought-processes and need to update to take into consideration relativity and quantum mechanics.

For sure. Anything that doesn’t change, quickly dies.

I would suggest though, that while our understanding of gravity, for example, is constantly evolving, it’s function doesn’t change. And one could make a similar observation in regards to faith.

 

[exchemist]

So understanding quantum physics requires a paradigm shift; an alteration in consciousness akin to what mystics might call a Spiritual Awakening?

You probably won’t want to use that term; see it as a metaphor if you like.

There is a point at which physics and philosophy overlap, indeed there as a point at which all disciplines overlap; as any Classical or Renaissance scholar will testify.

Agree with your last point. Science and philosophy have always informed one another and they have common cultural roots. I don't think this is a "spiritual" issue, but it is certainly a philosophical one, inasmuch as QM calls into question what we can assume about the nature of physical reality.

QM abandons the traditional idea that we can in principle track physical systems precisely, all the time, in favour of predicting only the outcomes of interactions between systems. In a sense, reality is redefined to mean only the way things interact with one another. What they "do" in between is no longer the subject of legitimate enquiry. One might ask if they are even there, in between interactions, at least in any useful sense!

That is pretty radical. Perhaps Bishop Berkeley was onto something after all. But where the woomeisters - and Berkeley - go off the track is to think that consciousness on the part of an observer has anything to do with it. The point is we can't observe any physical system without interacting with it. So "observation" necessarily implies "interaction". But there is nothing about QM to suggest that interactions with conscious observers are privileged over other interactions.

 

[Polymath257]

The point is we can't observe any physical system without interacting with it. So "observation" necessarily implies "interaction". But there is nothing about QM to suggest that interactions with conscious observers are privileged over other interactions.

And, in fact, every reason to think that *any* sufficiently complex system is enough to count as an 'observation'.

For example, it has been calculated that the interaction with the cosmic background radiation with dust is enough to 'collapse' the position of the dist speck to within millimeters within milliseconds. So the CMBR is 'complex enough' for observation of dust particle positions.

 

[exchemist]

And, in fact, every reason to think that *any* sufficiently complex system is enough to count as an 'observation'.

For example, it has been calculated that the interaction with the cosmic background radiation with dust is enough to 'collapse' the position of the dist speck to within millimeters within milliseconds. So the CMBR is 'complex enough' for observation of dust particle positions.

Yes. To generalise, I suppose one can say that the more intense the frequency of interaction, the better characterised a physical assembly becomes.