Jump to content

Neoholographic

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neoholographic

  1. Sadly, you don't even understand the basics of the experiment. I'm done explaining and done with this forum. When you can't debate an issue, you do your best to hide it. The 2 threads have nothing to do with each other. Frauchiger and Renner are talking about the universality of QM which shows that 2 observers can measure different outcomes for the same event on a classical level. This is what universality means when talking about QM being applied to complex systems. This is the Mandela Effect but I'm done because you guys don't even understand the basics of the experiment.
  2. What? That thread has nothing to do with the Mandela Effect. You people are so closed minded. You just don't want a thread with the Mandela Effect in the title. Especially one that uses science that shows support for the Mandela Effect. The two threads have nothing to do with each other. Shameful!
  3. What you said makes no sense. Faulty memory? People remember Mandela dying in prison. People remember his funeral and news reports about his death. Again, if all is quantum like most physicist believe, then Frauchiger and Renner showed that around 8% of the time classical observers will get 2 different outcomes for the same event. Let me repeat. One friend (Anna) tosses a coin and (because she's luckily a physicist) makes a quantum message to send to her friend Brad. Brad (who is also a physicist) can pick up Anna's message and understand the result of the coin toss. The problems start when the Wigners open their boxes to check on their friends. According to Renner, when they open their boxes, they should conclude with certainty where the coin landed in the toss. However, their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner told Nature. The pair of Swiss physicists have managed to considerably upset modern physicists in the process of sharing their new deliberations. This is the Mandela Effect. Instead of, I'm sure it's heads and I'm sure it's tails it's I'm sure Mandela died in prison, I'm sure he didn't. You can't just chalk it up to everyone's an idiot with these mass false memories. When you look at Wigner's friend experiment, it supports the Relational interpretation of QM which is observer dependent many worlds without the ad hoc universal wave function.
  4. Has Science provided evidence that supports the Mandela Effect? I say yes. The recent Wigner's friend experiment and work by Frauchiger and Renner support this. New Interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat Disrupts Quantum Mechanics It might be the most famous thought experiment in the world. A cat in a box could either be alive or dead -- and until that box was opened, one had to theorize that it could be both. Physicist Erwin Schrodinger described the scenario, and it became one of the basic explanations for quantum theory. Now, two physicists are challenging that riddle with their own version of the paradox. They replace the kitty with physicists conducting experiments. The result of their new theory has stumped other physicists. Physicists Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, were the first to pose the argument online in spring of 2016. And it's been debated hotly ever since. One friend (Anna) tosses a coin and (because she's luckily a physicist) makes a quantum message to send to her friend Brad. Brad (who is also a physicist) can pick up Anna's message and understand the result of the coin toss. The problems start when the Wigners open their boxes to check on their friends. According to Renner, when they open their boxes, they should conclude with certainty where the coin landed in the toss. However, their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner told Nature. The pair of Swiss physicists have managed to considerably upset modern physicists in the process of sharing their new deliberations. Link It's saying when you apply Quantum Theory to complex systems, you have this effect where 2 observers can observe 2 different outcomes for the same event. This effect would be small but noticeable and WE HAVE NOTICED! Just type in Mandela Effect or strange coincidences in Google search engine or on You Tube and you will see tons of examples. Here's the abstract from the recent Wigner's friend experiment. Abstract The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers. In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 I remember a guy everybody called Disco Bob. Everybody in the neighborhood was shocked when we heard Disco Bob had died. My Sister was friends with his Sister and remembers talking to her about Bob's death. One day my Sister was walking home and she saw Disco Bob. She screamed and ran because she just knew he was dead. Of course everyone laughed it off and explained it away. We were together with my Sister the other day and everyone was laughing and telling the Disco Bob story. Frauchiger and Renner said we would see this 1/12 of the time on a classical level. This is a little over 8% of the time and that sounds about right for the Mandela Effect and other strange coincidences. This is the way another article described the recent Wigner's friend experiment. A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/ This is the Mandela Effect, people remember 2 different histories for an event.A conscious observer can collapse many histories into a single shared history. This is because we know which measurement occurred or didn't occur and we know which branch of the wave function we're in. This would be groundbreaking to say the least and it would also confirm, once again, that QM destroys any notion of objective realism. If 2 histories of an event can be observed on occasion by 2 observers then how can you say what we experience is objectively real? It would say the universe we experience is more about our minds and the way we observe it not any objective physical reality. So you can have 2 universes in superposition for a singular event. In one universe, people are strongly coupled to history A(Mandela not dying in prison). They wouldn't be completely coupled to this history. Say it's 80% to 20%. In the other universe, there strongly coupled to history B(Mandela dying in prison). When these universes began to evolve as 2 separate universes, a small percentage of people from history B will end up in the first universe. They will remember Mandela dying in prison but most of the people will remember Mandela getting out of prison. There will also be people in the other universe who remember Mandela getting out of prison while most of the universe remembers him dying in prison. These things explain the Mandela Effect and other strange coincidences in obvious terms.
  5. Good points! This is where you get all of the confusion. When you treat subatomic particles like classical particles you get paradox on top of paradox. This is because you're asking things like how can a particle be in two places at the same time. So now you're giving the attributes of a real but non physical wave function to particles and you get ridiculous notions like many worlds. I accept the multiverse of inflation which is about the expansion of space and limited configurations matter can be in. MWI is about applying attributes of something real but non physical to the physical and it makes no sense. The goal here is to reduce the role of the observer. Sean Carroll says the observer is no different from a rock. So when I wake up and turn to ESPN, I didn't make a conscious choice to do that, I'm just in some decohered branch of the wave function but then you also need universes with versions of me watching the other 2,000 plus cable channels. It makes no sense.
  6. First, Professor Blood does rule out particles. Here's a direct quote from the Abstract. That's ruling them out. He has to couch it with cautious terms though because nothing in Science is truly proven outside of a mathematical theorem. With Relativity you still have to say if there isn't any evidence that comes along that changes things. Of course wave functions are not waves. That's why I titled the thread. The wave function is real but non physical according to quantum cryptography Again, you're just wasting time because you can't debate the issue. You have spent post after post talking about the semantics of QFT which have nothing to do with the thread.
  7. No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance. Very good point that goes to the substance of the debate. Calling them particles causes confusion because when people think of particles you think of particles of sand or particles of salt. If course these particles can't be in a superposition of states. So there's not a one to one correspondence between particles in the classical sense and subatomic particles. So it's better described as a wave with particle like properties. You then have a real but non physical wave function and some of the weirdness is removed because there's no need for a bunch of physical universes that makes no sense as Stephen Hawking said before he died. Taming the multiverse: Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang
  8. Sad, you can't debate or refute the issue so you keep bringing up non issues. If you want to start a separate thread about QFT then start it. There's mountains of evidence to debate like this. No Evidence for Particles Casey Blood Professor Emeritus of Physics Rutgers University https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf This is nothing new. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue because you can't refute the substance.
  9. Look, I know you want to quibble with semantics because you can't refute the substance. So you talk about rules of the forum because you obviously want the thread moved to speculation. Sadly, for you, you're question is answered in the substance of the post and I'll repeat it again. Easily, it's what Quantum Field Theory says. QFT says particles are excitation's of underlying quantum fields. QFT doesn't say there aren't any particles. Here's another paper by Physicist Art Hobson. There are no particles, there are only fields https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf Again, I understand why you want to quibble with semantics instead of debating substance. It's because you don't like the argument but you can't refute it. The existence of particles as real is something that has been debated for years because of QFT.
  10. Nope, very scientific. Just read the papers above. It's all laid out for you. I'm saying that particles don't have an existence separate from underlying quantum fields no more than droplets of water that for from huge waves have a separate existence from the ocean. Here's a key line from the Abstract. So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.
  11. I think a little more elaboration on the issue would be more enlightening to the debate. Like I said, we only see particles acting like particles. If you fire a bunch of photons one photon at a time at the double slits, you know what you will get at the screen? A bunch of photons. They just form an interference pattern so you assume that these photons that always act like photons are somehow physically acting like waves though we never see it. Why can't the opposite assumption be valid based on the evidence listed above that the wave function is real/non physical and the particles never act like waves because they're excitation's of underlying quantum fields according to QFT?
  12. This is a pretty big deal. This is because most of the confusion around the "weirdness" of Quantum Mechanics comes down to the interpretation of the wave function. Now we have evidence. This isn't speculation about the wave function but the results of experiments. First, let me lay out the evidence. The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.7127 Here's a test that also showed this. Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect Significance Abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/04/19/1614560114 This clearly changes everything especially when you look at Quantum Field Theory which says particles don't exist. What we call particles are just excitation's of underlying quantum fields. So those who like Copenhagen would have to accept the wave function is real and not just a mathematical tool and Many Worlds proponents would have to accept the wave function isn't physical. The only reason why you have things like wave/particle duality is because Scientist saw the double slit experiment and said the wave function is either physically real or it's not. There wasn't any in between which is clearly shown by the experiments above. The wave function could be real and represent where you're most likely to excite the quantum field and find a particle if you carry out a measurement. The double slit experiment supports this. If you fire single photons at the two slits, an interference pattern emerges. The photons still hit the back of the screen as photons they just form an interference pattern. There's no reason to assume that the particles are somehow acting like a wave. The particles are always particles and hit the screen as particles. The waves are all that exist. It's like when you see an ocean that's relatively calm and there's a few small waves on top of the ocean. If at certain points, the small waves turn to huge waves, you say there must be a school of fish or sharks underneath that point in the water that disturbed and excited the ocean. You can look at quantum fields this way. Vacuum energy or some other energy yet discovered, disturbs the quantum field at points. This excitation creates particles that disturb other quantum fields which creates different particles. The wave function is a real but non physical reality that describes what states these particles can be in when created by excitation's of underlying quantum fields. This is huge but requires a paradigm shift that sadly will never happen or take many years to happen. This is because most Scientist are materialist and a non physical yet real wave function that knows all information about the states particles can be in sounds too spiritual. Science doesn't care about your feelings though just facts and Tesla predicted this. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla
  13. It's called the Shared History Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It basically uses the recent experiments that confirmed Wigner's Friend on a macroscopic scale and recent experiments in quantum cryptography that showed information can travel between points A and B without the need for a physical medium. Shared history interpretation of quantum mechanics Harold Wimberly In this paper, I will propose a shared history interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. This shared history is built around consciousness and a real but non physical wave function. I will use recent studies pertaining to Wigner’s Friend and and quantum cryptography to show why a shared history interpretation of quantum mechanics bridges the gap between Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations. A shared history interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the only interpretation that has concrete evidence to support it because it depends on the wave function being real but non physical which is supported by recent experiments in quantum cryptography. 1. Introduction You often hear this debate about the role of the observer in Quantum Mechanics. How you view this role usually dictates the interpretation you prefer. If it's Copenhagen, then the observer is more robust and plays a crucial role in wave function collapse. If it's Many Worlds, then the observer is no different than a rock as Sean Carroll says and there's no wave function collapse. It all depends on how you view the observer in quantum mechanics. I will show through the recent paper titled,”Experimental test of local observer independence,”(1) that a conscious observer is needed to collapse many histories into a single shared history between conscious observers. This experiment was a realization of Wigner’s Friend gedanken experiment. It showed how two observers can reach different conclusions based on the same event and they can both be certain that their results are correct. I will also show how consciousness is connected to a real but non physical wave function. This was put forth in a paper titled,”The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography.”(2) Transfer of information without the transmission of a physical particle was realized in a recent experiment and published in a paper titled,”Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect.”(3) 2. Wigner’s Friend Wigner’s original thought experiment begins with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have either a horizontal polarization or a vertical polarization. But before the measurement, the photon is in superposition according to the laws of quantum mechanics and can exist in both states at the same time. Wigner imagined a friend in a lab measuring the state of this photon and storing the result. Wigner observed from outside of the lab so he didn’t know the results. So Wigner doesn’t have any information about his friend’s measurement. Wigner can then carry out a interference experiment on the same photon, and come to the opposite conclusion that his friend hasn’t carried out a measurement in the lab yet. So Wigner and his friend can come to opposite facts about the same event. Wigner’s friend can even call Wigner from the lab and tell him that he carried out a measurement and as long as he doesn’t tell him the results of that measurement, Wigner can still carry out a successful interference experiment. If Wigner’s Friend tells him the results of the measurement, Wigner’s wave function collapses and he can no longer get an interference pattern and his measurement is now aligned with his friend’s. It’s like Wigner’s wave function was updated when he got the results from his friend and now they have a shared history. 3. Wave Function real but non physical The wave function being real but non physical is supported by the evidence. It also bridges the gap between Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Each side just has to give a little. With Copenhagen, you would have to accept that the wave function is real. With Many Worlds, you would have to accept the fact that the wave function is non physical. The first paper I will quote that supports this is titled,”The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum Cryptography.” referenced as number(2) in the Introduction. Here’s the Abstract from the paper. There was another test that showed that information can be transferred between two points without the transmission of a particle. The information was transferred on the phase of the wave function. Here’s the Abstract from a paper titled,”Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect.” which is reference(3) in the Introduction. 4. Shared History Interpretation What does the shared interpretation of Quantum Mechanics say? Consciousness is needed for observers to have a shared history. This is because only conscious observers can tell which measurement occurred and which one didn’t. When it shares this information with another conscious observer, there’s a Bayesian updating that occurs and the wave function for both observers is in sync. The Wigner’s Friend experiment shows that non conscious observers can cause a measurement to occur but a non conscious observer doesn’t know which measurement occurred. A non conscious observer has stored information about the quantum system vs. dynamic information. Stored information - A measuring apparatus can store information like which slit did the particle pass through in the double slit experiment. This is stored in the memory of a non conscious observer. You need a conscious observer to come in and read the information. It can’t pass the information to another non conscious observer and the two non conscious couldn’t know which measured state they’re in vs. which measurement didn’t occur. Dynamic information - A conscious human observer can store information about a quantum system and think about that information in abstract ways. We can say, the measurement is in this state but not in the other state. We can share that information with other conscious observers. We can write books about the information, publish papers and ponder about what it means. Non conscious observers can reach different conclusions about the same event as shown in the Wigner’s Friend experiment. Wigner’s friend has collapsed the wave function locally and inside the lab he carries out a polarization measurement and the result is the photon is in the vertical or horizontal basis. He records this result. Wigner outside of the lab can carry out an interference measurement on the photon and his friends record and surprisingly they’re in superposition and Wigner can conclude that his friend didn’t carry out a measurement. Wigner’s friend can even call him and say he carried out a measurement and Wigner will still get an interference pattern as long as his friend doesn’t tell him the results. This is where a shared history interpretation comes into clear view. A non conscious observer doesn't know what state it’s in. The conscious observer can tell whether you're in state |→〉 or |←〉 a measurement from a non conscious observer can’t. When Wigner’s friend calls up Wigner and tells him the results, the results are now recorded in Wigner’s memory and he can no longer get an interference pattern. Wigner and his friend now have a shared history. You can’t collapse different histories into a shared history without a conscious observer that can say the system is in state |→〉 or |←〉. Now Wigner and his friend have a shared history. Wigner can say me and my friend share a history where my friend measured the photon in vertical polarization at 1:42 P.M on a Thursday. When Wigner’s friend shares the result of his measurement with Wigner, this knowledge collapses the wave function into a single shared history and Wigner can no longer get an interference pattern. With non conscious observers, you can have different outcomes for the same event. Non conscious observers can’t tell which state the system was or wasn’t measured in and can’t relay that information to another non conscious observer thereby collapsing the wave function into a single shared history and can’t think about the measured state in an abstract way. You need conscious human observers to do these things. Here’s another example. Let’s look at John Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment. Wheeler gave an example as to how this would look on a cosmic scale. He said: This has been confirmed in both delayed choice experiments and delayed choice quantum eraser experiments.(5) The dense galaxy or black hole acts as a non conscious observer. What it shows is that without the knowledge of a conscious observer, the measurement doesn’t become an objective shared history. The conscious observer on earth can choose how they want to measure the photon and if they want to get an interference pattern billions of years after the photon has made a choice to go to around the left or right side of the dense galaxy. Let’s take this a step further. Let’s say a conscious observer was on this dense galaxy and he measured the path the photon took. Would this change the choices the conscious observer can make to measure the photon? No, he still has a choice of how to carry out a measurement of the photon and he can still get an interference pattern. Now imagine if the observer on the dense galaxy had a hypothetical instant communication entanglement device. The conscious observer on the edge of the dense galaxy instantly relay’s to the conscious observer on earth the result of his measurement. The conscious observer’s choices on earth are gone. He can no longer get an interference pattern because he has knowledge of the results of the measurement This is why the wave function needs to be real but non physical as shown in recent quantum cryptography experiments. This means the wave function is real and goes through the double slits and there’s no need to assume that a physical particle is the source of interference. Quantum Field Theory tells us that particles don’t exist and they’re just excitations of underlying quantum fields. The wave function could tell us what part of the field which is more likely to be excited when you carry out a measurement and that’s where you will find the particle. Here’s some key points from the paper ,”The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum Cryptography.” referenced as number(2) in the Introduction. 5. Conclusion The shared history interpretation is the only interpretation with clear and convincing evidence. It shows non conscious observers can cause a measurement to occur but you need human, conscious observers to know what state did or didn’t occur and collapse many histories into a single history. This is because a conscious observer can share the results of a measurement with other conscious observers. Non conscious observers can’t do this and they can get different outcomes for the same event. There’s no way a non conscious observer can know what history they’re in or share that information with another non conscious observer. This is stored information vs. dynamic information where human consciousness can think about this information in abstract ways. Wigner’s friend in the lab can carry out a polarization measurement and record the outcome. Wigner outside the lab can do an interference measurement on his friend’s photon that was measured and the photon where the memory of the results were stored and get an interference pattern that tells Wigner his friend hasn’t carried out a measurement. If Wigner’s friend calls Wigner with and tells him the result then this collapses the wave function into a single shared history between Wigner and his friend. This can only happen with conscious observers because conscious observers know which state the measurement is in. The only reason Wigner can get an interference pattern is because of his lack of knowledge of the outcome of a measurement on the quantum system. A non conscious observer will always have a lack of knowledge as to what state the particle is in after measurement. It will just have stored knowledge. So if two non conscious observers has stored two different outcomes for a single event, one of the non conscious observers can’t call the other non conscious observer and say this is the state that was measured thereby collapsing the wave function and being in a shared history with the other non conscious observer. This can only happen with consciousness. So a shared history interpretation of Quantum Mechanics shows consciousness is needed in QM. References https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.7127.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/04/19/1614560114 http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.