Neoholographic
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Neoholographic
-
-
I think this is a very interesting question the article raises.
First let me say, I approach this debate in a different way. I say there’s a natural interpretation of evolution and there’s an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. I think a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It’s designed to separate people from God and a natural interpretation of evolution is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humans.
It’s impossible for a storage medium to encode it’s sequence with information. This is the domain of intelligence.
The sequence of objects or symbols don’t have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn’t encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.
Again, / and * don’t encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.
The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn’t first given meaning and encoded by intelligence?
https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/how-can-evolution-occur-naturally-36722923c231
We know how intelligence can encode the sequence of a storage medium with information and build the machinery to decode it. This is how we build civilization. How can this occur naturally? What's the origin of information? He gives another example:
My Nephew was over so there’s crayons, a deck of cards and a paper plate on my table.
I can say:
If the deck of cards, crayons and plate are in a sequence from left to right, then meet me at Subway on 4th St.
I can also say, if the plate, deck of cards and crayons are on the table in a sequence from left to right, meet me Downtown at Chipolte on Market St.
My mind, my intelligence has encoded sequence with information. This information can be decoded by another intelligence or if I construct the machinery to decode the information.
The deck of cards, plate and crayons contain none of the information I want to encode. These things are just the medium. It’s the same with DNA. DNA is the medium encoded with information in the sequence of DNA letters ACTG.
This shows that a natural interpretation of evolution isn’t just filled with gaps but it’s not possible. You would have to give a medium the agency of mind and intelligence.
https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/how-can-evolution-occur-naturally-36722923c231
The article says it would be like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman or an igloo and it would be encoded with the information to build machinery that can decode the information on it's sequence.
Again, how is this explained naturally? What were the steps and what medium did this? Did DNA encode it's sequence with information? If so how? When did DNA become like a mind? Did something outside of DNA encode it's sequence with information? If so what was the nature of this medium if it wasn't intelligent? How could it encode the sequence of a storage medium with information? We can even encode DNA with books, papers and DVD's now.
0 -
2 hours ago, Halc said:
That would indeed be huge, but it doesn't happen. If the friend is capable of calling Wigner, Wigner is effectively in the lab. Decoherence has taken place. Wigner cannot measure interference anymore as the wave function has collapsed. This has nothing to do with what the friend writes or says.
This cannot be. If Wigner can measure the system, the lab is not a contained system (not a Schrodinger’s box) and the wave function of the photon is collapsed already due to it already having been measured by the friend. Wigner doesn’t know the result of that measurement (a classic epistemological state), but the photon is not in superposition relative to Wigner.
If the lab is a perfect box (zero information coming out), then Wigner has nothing to measure.
The friend can lie all he wants. It will have no effect on the outcome of any experiment unless Wigner bases his decisions (what to measure) on the information from the friend.
Have you read the recent Wigner friend's experiments? There's no evidence of a universal collapse of the wave function. In fact, collapse may not occur at all and Wigner's friend in the lab has just become a part of the S+O system as Rovelli says in his Relational quantum mechanics.
All physical interactions are, at bottom, quantum interactions, and must ultimately be governed by the same rules. Thus, an interaction between two particles does not, in RQM, differ fundamentally from an interaction between a particle and some "apparatus". There is no true wave collapse, in the sense in which it occurs in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Because "state" is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to "self-measurement". If observer O measures system S, S's "state" is represented as a correlation between O and S. O itself cannot say anything with respect to its own "state", because its own "state" is defined only relative to another observer, O'. If the S+O compound system does not interact with any other systems, then it will possess a clearly defined state relative to O'. However, because O's measurement of S breaks its unitary evolution with respect to O, O will not be able to give a full description of the S+O system (since it can only speak of the correlation between S and itself, not its own behaviour). A complete description of the (S+O)+O' system can only be given by a further, external observer, and so forth.
Taking the model system discussed above, if O' has full information on the S+O system, it will know the Hamiltonians of both S and O, including the interaction Hamiltonian. Thus, the system will evolve entirely unitarily (without any form of collapse) relative to O', if O measures S. The only reason that O will perceive a "collapse" is because O has incomplete information on the system (specifically, O does not know its own Hamiltonian, and the interaction Hamiltonian for the measurement).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
This is exactly what we see in the recent Wigner's friend experiments. The wave function "collapses" for Wigner's friend in the lab which is his fram of reference but it doesn't collapse for Wigner oustide of the lab. Wigner can still measure interference between his friend's record of what he measured and the photon that was measured. Here's some highlights from the paper.
QuoteWigner can now perform an interference experiment in an entangled basis containing the states of Eq. 1 to verify that the photon and his friend’s record are indeed in a superposition—a fact from his point of view. From this fact, Wigner concludes that his friend cannot have recorded a definite outcome. Concurrently, however, the friend does always record a definite outcome, which suggests that the original superposition was destroyed and Wigner should not observe any interference. The friend can even tell Wigner that she recorded a definite outcome (without revealing the result), yet Wigner and his friend’s respective descriptions remain unchanged (6). This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers. Can one reconcile their different records, or are they fundamentally incompatible, so that they cannot be considered objective, observer-independent “facts of the world” (3, 4)?
Again, you're saying what some suspect to be the result but it wasn't. Wigner's friend in the lab did't destroy the superposition when he measured the photon. The friend can even tell Wigner that a recorded outcome occurred without revealing the results and Wigner can still measure interference as I said.
QuoteIt was recently shown (4) that this question can be addressed formally, by considering an extension of the Wigner’s friend scenario as follows. Consider a pair of physical systems, shared between two separate laboratories controlled by Alice and Bob, respectively (see Fig. 1C). Inside these laboratories, Alice’s friend and Bob’s friend measure their respective system nondestructively and record the outcomes in some memory. Outside these laboratories, in each run of the experiment, Alice and Bob can choose to either measure the state of their friend’s record—i.e., to attest the facts established by their friend, and whose results define the random variables A0 (for Alice’s friend) and B0 (for Bob’s friend), or to jointly measure the friend’s record and the system held by the friend—to establish their own facts, defining variables A1 (for Alice) and B1 (for Bob). After comparing their results, Alice and Bob can estimate the probability distributions P(Ax, By) for all four combinations of x, y = 0,1. As in the original Wigner’s friend Gedankenexperiment, the facts A1, B1 attributed to Alice and Bob and A0, B0 attributed to their friends’ measurements may be inconsistent.
Again, there's no universal collapse of the wave function. This supports Rovelli and RQM which says these things are observer dependent. So "collapse" happens in Wigner's friend's reference frame but not for Wigner until he has knowledge of his friend's result. This is also in line with the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment and entanglement swapping experiments. This is exactly what happened when they carried out the experiment.
QuoteThe observables A0 and B0 directly unveil the records established by Alice’s and Bob’s friend, respectively. The observables A1 and B1, on the other hand, correspond to Alice’s and Bob’s joint measurements on their friend’s photon and record, and define their own facts in the same way as Wigner in the original thought experiment confirms his entangled state assignment.
All of these quotes are taken from the published paper Experimental test of local observer independence: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw9832
If decoherence occurred and some universal collapse independent of the observer, then they shouldn't be able to measure interference. This supports Quantum Awareness. The only thing that collapses the wave function for Wigner is when he gains knowledge about the outcome of his friends measurement in the lab. It would be more profound if his friend lied to Wigner about the result of his measurement and then Wigner can still measure interference. How is the system aware Wigner is being lied to when Wigner isn't aware of it?
0 -
I think this is an interesting thought experiment. It's a variation of the Wigner's friend experiment which could go down as one of the most important thought experiments in science. There's been a lot of papers on Wigner's friend lately. I think it supports the consciousness or awareness of the observer in QM is needed to fully explain quantum mechanics.
QuoteA thought experiment ask, is Quantum Awareness fundamental to the universe?
Orch Or and other theories of consciousness need to be looked at with an open mind. In this article, I want to talk about a thought experiment that I came up with called, Can Wigner’s Friend Lie? This thought experiment is a twist on the Wigner’s friend thought experiment by Nobel prize winning Physicist Eugene Wigner. Wigner’s friend says, his friend in a laboratory carries out a quantum measurement on a system like an electron or photon. In this case, he’s performing a polarization measurement on a photon and he will observe if the photon is in vertical or horizontal polarization. He carries out the measurement and writes down in his notebook that he measured vertical polarization of the photon at 1 PM. In the lab, Wigner’s friend has caused the wave function to “collapse.” For Wigner outside of the lab, it’s a different story. Wigner can look at the photon and a record of his friend’s measurement and do an interference measurement and measure interference. Wigner can conclude that his friend didn’t carry out a measurement in the lab and the wave function Wigner measures is in superposition according to the linearity of the quantum mechanical equations. So the laboratory is in a superposition that includes Wigner’s friend who measured verticlal polarization and Wigner’s friend who measured horizontal polarization. Wigner’s wave function didn’t collapse although the wave function for his friend in the lab clearly collapsed and he has written down a record of this result. Wigner can only carry out an interference measurement and measure interference as long as he doesn’t have any knowledge and isn’t conscious of his friend’s measurement. If his friend calls and says,”Hey Wigner, I measured vertical polarization.” Wigner can no longer measure interference. How is the quantum system aware of what Wigner knows or doesn’t know about it’s state?
QuoteI have a strong QA postulate and a weak QA postulate. A weak QA postulate says this Quantum Awareness becomes more dynamic when it interacts with human brains. It becomes self awareness. A strong QA postulate would be a more robust Quantum Awareness that may be more self aware than we are. We can test this by a thought experiment I call,”Can Wigner’s Friend Lie?” It would essentially be the same set up as the Wigner’s friend experiments, but Wigner’s friend would call Wigner and say,”Hey Wigner, I measured horizontal polarization.” Wigner’s friend actually measures vertical polarization and the question is, can Wigner still measure interference when his friend lies to him about the results of his measurement? We already know that Wigner can’t measure interference once he has knowledge of his friend’s measurement. The question is, is this Quantum Awareness so robust that it even knows when Wigner is being lied to and he actually doesn’t have knowledge of the state of a quantum system even when Wigner doesn’t know he’s being lied to?
https://hwimberlyjr.medium.com/can-wigners-friend-lie-c3fabeaa7bbc
This would be an interesting experiment. If Wigner's friend calls and tells Wigner the truth about what was measured and the Wigner can't carry out an interference measurement, then the friend calls him and lies about the measurement and Wigner can still carry out an interference measurement, that would be huge. You would have to connect the wave function to the knowledge of an observer and what an observer knows or doesn't know about it's state.
Here's some more recent Wigner friend studies:
Experimental test of local observer independence
QuoteThe 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
Quantum erasing the memory of Wigner's friend
QuoteThe Wigner's friend paradox concerns one of the most puzzling concepts of quantum mechanics: the consistent description of multiple nested observers. Recently, a variation of Wigner's gedankenexperiment, introduced by Frauchiger and Renner, has lead to new debates about the self-consistency of quantum mechanics. We propose a simple single-photon interferometric setup implementing their scenario, and use our reformulation to shed a new light on the assumptions leading to their paradox. From our description, we argue that the three apparently incompatible properties used to question the consistency of quantum mechanics correspond to two logically distinct contexts: either assuming that Wigner has full control over his friends' lab, or conversely that some part of the labs remain unaffected by Wigner's subsequent measurements. The first context may be seen as the quantum erasure of the memory of Wigner's friend. We further show these properties are associated with observables which do not commute, and therefore cannot take well-defined values simultaneously. Consequently, the three contradictory properties never hold simultaneously.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09905
Wigner's friend is destroying the notion of materialism once again and posing serious questions about the role of the observer, consciousness and is there really an objective reality.
0 -
14 minutes ago, QuantumT said:
But unlike the Wigner's experiment, you can google what happened to Mandela, and determine that one of them was mistaken. He did not die in prison, no matter how clearly the memory is.
To me, the Wigner's experiment only shows, that a particle is capable of returning to the wave state, when observer A stops observing. So when observer B starts observing, the wave collapses again. It's a new event. Not the same event with two outcomes.
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.
0 -
13 minutes ago, swansont said:!
Moderator Note
Similar threads merged
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!
0 -
38 minutes ago, Strange said:
You don't need anything other than the well-known plasticity of memory to explain the Mandela effect.
And "strange coincidences" are not that strange, or coincidental, when you actually analyse them.
Making the leap from "coincidences are weird and quantum theory is weird" to "therefore they must be connected" is just intellectually lazy and has no substance to it.
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.
0 -
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.
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.
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.
0 -
47 minutes ago, Mordred said:
A simple answer is that the pointlike particle properties can be defined by the Compton or Debroglie wavelength within the QFT regime the particle is described via states. One can literally study entire QFT textbooks without once reading the word particle.
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.
0 -
23 minutes ago, studiot said:
Once again you avoid answering my question.
As to the school playground remark "no it doesn't"
I assume that refers to your quote from Professor Blood.
He says there is no evidence for particles, but does not rule them out.
Unlike you and your other reference.
But equally he very carefully distinguishes between waves and wave functions.
Wave functions are not waves.
But enough of quotes from others.
You should post a point of your own to this, using scientific terminology correctly and preferably backing it up with some mathematics.
First, Professor Blood does rule out particles. Here's a direct quote from the Abstract.
QuoteIt can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles.
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.
0 -
30 minutes ago, studiot said:
You asked for substance.
I asked you a purely scientific question with exactly zero value judgement content.
So how can this be a 'non issue' ?
I further note your quote from Professor Blood (which seems to put my view rather well) runs contrary to your stated (scientific) position here in this thread.
He, at least, used correct terminology.No it doesn't. There's no difference but again, you want to debate semantics not substance.
22 minutes ago, taeto said:Now that particles no longer exist in the real world, but the term 'particle' continues to be used in physical models to describe certain systems that have mass and volume, etc., then maybe we can simply scrap the old-fashioned use of the word particle, and instead begin to use the word for physical objects that have particle-like properties? 🙂
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.
Quote“The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean,” said Hawking in an interview last autumn. “The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested. ”
Taming the multiverse: Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang
0 -
3 minutes ago, studiot said:
In which case you will be able to produce (here) a derivation purely from known wave properties of the observable properties of particles.
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
QuoteThere are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.
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.
0 -
5 minutes ago, studiot said:
It's not laid out on this forum (as required in the rules)
That is why I asked the question.
How can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible?
I'm not quibbling I asked a serious quesion which you seem to want to avoid answering.
Do you fear that your 'argument' ( you have used this term correctly) will not stand up to the rigour of scientific scrutiny?
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.
QuoteHow can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible?
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
QuoteQuantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental.
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.
-1 -
7 minutes ago, studiot said:
Aren't these two sentences self contradictory?
Also real" and "exist"
I think you are using too many non scientific words.
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.
QuoteAn advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real".
So there's no need to quibble about semantics when it's all laid out in the substance of the argument.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Strange said:
Nonsense.
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?
0 -
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
QuoteCounterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.7127
Here's a test that also showed this.
Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect
Significance
QuoteRecent theoretical studies have shown that quantum mechanics allows counterfactual communication, even without actual transmission of physical particles, which raised a heated debate on its interpretation. Although several papers have been published on the theoretical aspects of the subject, a faithful experimental demonstration is missing. Here, by using the quantum Zeno effect and a single-photon source, direct communication without carrier particle transmission is implemented successfully. We experimentally demonstrate the feasibility of direct counterfactual communication with the current technique. The results of our work can help deepen the understanding of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, our experimental scheme is applicable to other quantum technologies, such as imaging and state preparation.
Abstract
QuoteIntuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.
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 Tesla0 -
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 mechanicsHarold WimberlyIn 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. IntroductionYou 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 FriendWigner’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 physicalThe 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.QuoteCounterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer’s knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of “physical”, apart from “real”. In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob’s measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob’s apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.(2)
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.
QuoteIntuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.(3)
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:Quote1. A distant star emits a photon many billions of years ago.2. The photon must pass a dense galaxy (or black hole) directly in its path toward earth."Gravitational lensing" predicted by general relativity (and well verified) will make the light bend around the galaxy or black hole. The same photon can, therefore, take either of two paths around the galaxy and still reach earth. It can take the left path and bend back toward earth; or it can take the right path and bend back toward earth. Bending around the left side is the experimental equivalent of going through the left slit of a barrier; bending around the right side is the equivalent of going through the right slit.3. The photon continues for a very long time (perhaps a few more billion years) on its way toward earth.4. On earth (many billions of years later), an astronomer chooses to use a screen type of light projector, encompassing both sides of the intervening and the surrounding space without focusing or distinguishing among regions. The photon will land somewhere along the field of focus without our astronomer being able to tell which side of the galaxy/black hole the photon passed, left or right. So the distribution pattern of the photon (even of a single photon, but easily recognizable after a lot of photons are collected) will be an interference pattern.5. Alternatively, based on what she had for breakfast, our astronomer might choose to use a binocular apparatus, with one side of the binoculars (one telescope) focused exclusively on the left side of the intervening galaxy, and the other side focussed exclusively on the right side of the intervening galaxy. In that case the "pattern" will be a clump of photons at one side, and a clump of photons at the other side.Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ, the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments.(4)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 measurementThis 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.QuoteOf course, the status of the wave function (as being real or epistemic) does not depend on Bob’s choice of AB or FB. Nor does it depend on whether Bob is located at the end of arm a or b. What may conclude is that the each of the superposed states in Eq. (1), ψa ≡ a † |0, 0i and ψb ≡ b † |0, 0i, is by itself real-nonphysical, and thus, so too the particle state state |Ψi = √ 1 2 (ψa + ψb) in Eq. (1) is also real-nonphysical. We may therefore conclude that the quantum state is quite generally real-nonphysical. In retrospect, we may reflect in this new light on the wisdom of Feynman’s observation with regard to the double-slit experiment, mentioned in the opening paragraph. Our approach suggests that in the production of fringes in the double-slit experiment, there is indeed some “real stuff” travelling down both slits, but it is not physical. This explication thus puts (or so we hope!) a name on the mystery alluded to by Feynman.Our work showed that the non-physical reality of the wave function is not an abstruse philosophical notion, but has the concrete application of being responsible for security in CQC. Finally, we venture that it is the lack of distinction in the literature between the real and the physical aspect that is responsible for the historical difficulty in interpreting the physical significance of the quantum state. In the discussion pertaining to the double-slit experiment, at first one has the intuitive feeling that there is something real traveling down both slits. One then subconsciously maps this real thing to something physical. But clearly the possibility of the quantum wave as a physical entity is one that we would consciously reject. Thus, psychologically speaking, a person thinking about quantum foundations is caught in the perpetual dilemma of deciding whether or not the quantum state is real. It is our belief that our work resolves this dilemma.(2)5. ConclusionThe 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.References0
How can evolution naturally encode sequence with information?
in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Posted · Edited by Neoholographic
I'm not talking about the clustering of information that might give you a pretty mountanside or a snowflake. I'm talking about the encoding of information in the sequence of a storage medium and building the machinery to decode the information encoded in it's sequence. You even have information encoded into non coding sequences that regulate the expression of coding sequences.
This is impossible to occur naturally. That's why I asked to give me the steps.
If I say If if you walk into the house and see 3 pairs of shoes then meet me at Outback on Miles Street at 7 PM but if you see 5 pairs of shoes, meet me at Longhorn on 7th Street at 8:30 PM then I have encoded the sequence of my shoes with information. The shoes are the medium. The shoes don't create or encode themselves with information. It takes someone with intelligence to decode the information or I can build machinery to decode this information.
This isn't the clustering of macro information to give you the appearence of the design of a snowflake. This is purpose and intelligent design of an encoded/decoding system that will rival any supercomputer in the world to today. It would be like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman or igloo and also encoded with information to build the machinery to decode that information as well as information to regulate the expression of coding regions.
A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.
https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/
So again, we're talking about the encoding and decoding of information that's stored in the sequence of of a storage medium.
How did this information naturally get stored on the sequence of a storage medium? How did the information to build machinery to decode this information get encoded on the sequence of a storage medium? How did the information to regulate the sequence of coding regions get encoded on the sequence of a storage medium?
Secondly, evolution is modular. You have all of these parts that evolve that just work togother in complex ways to carry out different tasks. Again, this isn't a gap, this is a gulf. Why would materialism produce any parts that work together?
If I'm designing a modular home, I make design 30 parts that I carry to the home site that just fit together and work together because that's the way it was designed. These parts are designed to work together. If you accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, then these parts evolve and voila! like magic they just work together.
You have molucular machines with 50 different parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to work together. If I build a machine for a factory, it has all the right parts that's the right shape, size and they come together at the right angles that fit because they were designed that way by intelligence.
Explain how this can occur naturally? I have designed programs that used sequences of symbols and letters to build a program but intelligence that lived before me encoded these sequences with meaning and information. I can go into a factory and look at any machine on the assembly line and see how sequence is encoded with information and intelligence build the machinery to decode this information. A natural interpretation of evolution can't happen.