Let me you ask you a question. If you close your eyes does the world still exist?
“Of course it does. What a daft question.”
How do you know?
“Well, I can feel the chair I am sitting on. I can hear noise from the street outside.”
Yes but what if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no-one sees or hears it falling?
“It still happens because the world exists, we are just part of it.”
You believe that the world is a physical reality?
“Of course, why are you asking these crazy questions?”
To show why I had such a hard time believing in Quantum mechanics. At the start of all this back in the 1920’s all of us theoretical physicists were excited by what we discovered about light and atoms. Then some people like my friend Niels Bohr took quantum mechanics to an extreme and claimed that nothing exists until it is measured. A tree wouldn’t really have fallen until someone went to see.
“So the big bang didn’t happen until someone came along and could measure it?”
Crazy idea, huh?
“Raving. If the universe couldn’t have been born until someone checked it had happened where did that person come from?”
Brilliant, now you’re thinking. Do you know what we call that? A paradox, where something contradicts itself or common sense. Quantum mechanics is full of them and I spent a lot of time tormenting Niels Bohr with paradoxes but he still believed in quantum mechanics. The crazier it got the more he believed in it. Niels Bohr once said if quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.
“Well I’m shocked and I’m still not sure I understand it. How did they even start to believe this?”
In quantum mechanics any situation is a blend of every possible option of what might happen and this blend is called a wave function. This seems to work for light. Sometimes light can act as a particle and sometimes as a wave. Niels Bohr and his friends showed that atoms seem to follow the same rules. As the world is made of atoms, the world must follow the rules of quantum mechanics. Obviously in the real world doesn't spend its life sitting on the fence, things just happen. But in quantum mechanics things happen only when this wave function collapses and only one possibility is left.
"What on earth does that mean?"
Sorry that’s the sort of jargon quantum mechanics use all the time. It means that at some point a situation has to stop having every possible outcome. When an event is observed then all the other possibilities suddenly disappear.
"Hmmm. Still not sure I get this at all."
It's like saying that the universe is based on chance. One enormous casino. What happens next is based on chance not on an absolute certainty. Imagine the universe as a horse race with lots of evenly matched horses. Until the race is over you can't tell which horse is going to win. With quantum mechanics the idea is that the race isn't over until someone decides to check on the result. This is where the science fiction idea of ‘parallel universes’ comes from. If every possible outcome is waiting to happen perhaps it really does happen in another quantum universe. Every horse wins in some reality.
“Gamblers must love quantum mechanics, but it seems too weird to be true.”
That’s what I started to think. But it wasn’t just me. A friend of mine Erwin Schrödinger was the man who first discovered the equations that quantum mechanics relies on. Even he couldn’t believe the idea that nothing happens until someone looks to check it. He invented the most famous cat in science - Schrödinger's cat. If nothing happens until it is observed then imagine the following. A cat is put in a box with a small gadget that will release poison.
"A real cat?"
No this is just an imaginary cat, so whatever happens the cat doesn't really get harmed. Like this journey, it's what is called a ‘thought experiment’ as you have to imagine it happening.
“OK, I’m sure I want to even imagine poisoning a cat but let’s hear where this is going.”
This poison will be released by something that is controlled by the laws of quantum mechanics, for example radioactive decay. Radioactive atoms are ones that are unstable and spontaneously break down into smaller atoms. So there is a lump of radioactive material and a device to detect if an atom has broken down. This atomic break-up has a 50:50 chance of happening in one hour. According to quantum mechanics, until the box is opened an hour later both outcomes should co-exist. The cat should be both dead and alive at the same time until someone observes the result.
"Can't the cat tell if it's dead or not?"
Only if it's alive.
"Hmmm. That’s as daft as the ancient Greeks thinking that seeing involved feeling rays coming out of the eyes."
Well despite what some people think, this story was meant to show how Niels Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics was wrong. It was just an interpretation. I think there is an easier way of thinking about this. Quantum mechanics does seem to explain a lot of things about atoms and light. This craziness of a cat that is both dead and alive only applies if you stick to the idea that everything happens until it is measured by a person. There is no paradox if you just change to the idea that a quantum event happens when the result interacts with anything. When the radioactive atom in the box decays, the cat will only die when the radioactivity detector in the box detects it. When a particle that follows quantum mechanics interacts with anything it has to commit to being one thing or another. So a quantum mechanic event can set up a sequence of events that end up with a cat that is dead or alive without needing it be both at the same time.
“I thought you didn’t believe in quantum mechanics?”
Well I didn’t believe the extreme version, but perhaps in my re-creation inside this computer I’ve mellowed a bit. All this cat really tells us about quantum mechanics is that trying to use quantum mechanics to explain normal day-to-day life doesn't work. Understanding atoms doesn't help you understand a whole cat, but then again understanding cats doesn't help you understand atoms, so it works both ways. At the end of the day quantum mechanics does make sense in its own realm and offers explanations for strange effects that have no other explanation. My problem with quantum mechanics was summed in the my idea that 'God doesn't play dice'. Everyone seems to remember that but do you know not what Niels Bohr said in reply?
“No.”
It is not the job of scientists to prescribe to God how he should run the world. Not a bad reply I think. My real problem with quantum mechanics was that I couldn’t see why the universe would have one set of rules for big objects and another set of rules for the particles inside atoms. I spent most of the second half of my life trying to join this all together into one beautiful theory of everything.
“Did you get there?”
No. Once or twice I thought I was close but it slipped away, like sand through my fingers. Someone out there will solve it I’m sure one day.
“The world needs another Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton to solve that.”
Well the world needs a lot of things more than another Einstein or Newton. Peace, kindness and fewer weapons would be a good start. Mind you, I don't suppose Isaac Newton would have been too happy with the Schrödinger's cat experiment either. One of Newton's less well known claims to fame is as the inventor of the cat flap. In the simple understandable universe that Newton described, the cat would have got bored and left out of the flap at the back, leaving the quantum mechanics scratching their heads and wondering where the cat had gone.
(No cats were harmed in the writing of this blog post. In fact one was fed, let out of the kitchen door, let back in and back out again. I don't have a cat flap.)
CHAT WITH ALBERT 2.0's CAT MIMI
This is the story of a great journey that started with a great thought. One day in 1895 a boy looked into a mirror and wondered what the universe would look like if he could travel on a beam of light. That sixteen year old boy was Albert Einstein and that one thought started him on the road to discover his Theory of Relativity. The great man has been reinvented as Albert 2.0 to come back and blog about a journey through space on a beam of light and explain the science behind everything from atoms, blackholes to global warming. If you've just joined and want to start at the beginning use the index on the left. If you're bored try these links below just for fun.
UNSCRAMBLE EINSTEIN'S BRAIN
PRACTISE SAVING THE WORLD FROM ASTEROIDS
ALIEN CONTACT CALCULATOR
HEAR THE REAL EINSTEIN TALK ABOUT E=Mc2.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Quantum mechanics for cat lovers – Newton strikes back.
Labels: Bohr, cat, Dice, Quantum mechanics, schrodinger
117 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alas.
Naf
All is rational to an irrational mind.
Tell me I can't and I shall try.
If I may not do, then I will be.
Floating is the action of conciosness, it is blown by the breeze of desire.
I absolutely HATED the movie "What the Bleep do we know?" because it played on the confusion and misunderstanding about wave functions and probabilities. Nice to see I'm not the only one who gets it.
Gary 7
I agree that the movie wasn't the most accurate, but I did enjoy watching it... I actually found it inspiring :-P
http://elboubi.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E331A224480FCC79!708.entry
Cat-loving Shamanista
try it through meditation.
buddha new what was up.
thanks for the time
I thought "What the Bleep Do We Know" did an excellent job of explaining quantum physics to the average everyday lay person. And it get so much better with the six cd set.
Look at it some more, and you see the pattern in society, in our perceptions, our individual selves, cellular existence, the universe, solar systems, black holes, all human creation, from war, to love, the pattern resonates.. everywhere.
According to the law of God and to my understanding of the makeup of relativity and and quantum physics, in order to come up with a new kind of energy you must find the missing element. I do not know
much about science but going to church and learning about God and man and experiencing the supernatural I have become very curious and eager to go back to school and learn more in this area.
Sincerely, Peculiar thoughts Within
Perhaps not thought as much as human understanding - an idea I explore in more detail at the end of this journey (post 52)
Another option is, wave functions don't really collapse; at that point the universe, including you, bifurcates into multiple universe and the copy of you in any one copy of the universe is only aware of the outcome that occurred in that copy.
This may seem inane but it eliminates many paradoxes.
I'm a theoretical physicist specializing in solid state or condensed matter physics. This means almost everything I do is quantum mechanical in nature; because the physics of solids is all about electron behavior in nuclear lattices. The point is, I know what I'm talking about... unlike a lot of people posting comments!
If there is a down side to being a physicist, it is having to listen to the silly ramblings of people, who are convinced that they understand what they are talking about, that really have no freakin' clue! Any scientists reading this post will understand EXACTLY what I'm talking about :)
The worst part of all this is that the universe is actually much wilder and more beautiful than even these uninformed, free-range imaginations can conjure up. I don't by any means claim to understand it, which is a mark of someone who at least somewhat knows what they are talking about. I mean, sure, I understand the contents of this blog on a much deeper level than what is described. But in my flavor of science, I don't deal with the Higgs-Boson or quantum gravity or Planck-length order dimensions. These are the are the swirls from the tip of God's paintbrush that leave physicists in awe.
Anyhow, long story short, if you can't find the inner-product of complex (imaginary number complex, not complicated) functions, you don't know what a Legendre polynomial is or you think a boundary condition is something your girlfriend suffers from, then you should be reading about physics, not lecturing about it in blogs. No amount of imagination is a substitute for understanding math. As Galileo said, mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe. If you don't understand math, then you can't relate to the universe. Of course, Einstein believed that you should be able to explain the laws of physics to a bar maid. This, in its proper context, refers to the reduction of all physical law to a simple unified equation of everything. Einstein wrote down some pretty damn interesting math. I've never met a bar maid that explain to me the concept of a metric tensor!
This comment is directed at the people who posted comments, not the person who wrote the blog. The blog actually does a reasonable job and from an artist's standpoint is actually quite imaginative. Like I said, it becomes silly in parts, but that is probably a good thing, since it can lead people with that silly understanding back to a more reasonable place. Too bad it didn't seem to work for everybody *frown*.
I don't want to discourage imagination. Indeed, imagination is the most important tool a physicist has. But don't waste time and poison the understanding of others if you can't be bothered to inform yourself of how things actually are. Make a point of using words like "I wonder if...", or "Would't it be cool if...". Don't try to come off like you understand what you're talking about. I'm sure I did the same things when I was in high-school, but if I did, I'm surely embarrassed about it now. Take that for what it's worth.
Anyhow, to the blogger: thank you for your imaginative discussion.
Cheers to all,
Tim.
P.S.
A warning to those who watch "What the Bleep do we know?" and take it to heart. I haven't seen it (but I am about to). From what I've heard, it is one of the best examples of popular misconception available to the paying consumer.
"ONE of the most scandalously bad misrepresentations of physics in recent years"
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125651.500-where-mind-meets-quantum-matter.html
So, the tree does fall in the forest even when nobody is watching. The individual particles in that tree are not in specific positions, because their positions have not been observed, but it doesn't matter where exactly those particles are in the tree. The tree as a whole is not significantly effected by the exact positions of its particles - so it will fall regardless.
Of course, here's where the Schroedinger's cat paradox comes in: Schroedinger created a situation where an event at the atomic level could do something significant on a large scale (ie. a nucleus decaying will kill a cat). Quantum theory states that the cat isn't alive or dead until it's observed. This has lead to huge debate and many differing versions of quantum mechanics, and different opinions about what constitutes "observation", but one thing is agreed upon in all interpretations: The cat definitely exists before it's observed, even if it's not specifically alive or dead.
Whilst this may not be the complete truth, it helps me to understand.
We didn't evolve to deal with stuff at the Planck length, we just developed tools to allow us to do it. If you don't have the toolkit your brain is never really going to get it, is it?
http://www.learnoutloud.com/
Catalog/Science/Physics/
Modern-Theoretical-Physics/23022
Leonard Susskind
for a little more. It's about half way down.
I think it is, so far, a formulation by mathematically minded people, that fits the observed facts of some behaviour.
But even this idiot writer has managed to see an alternate "scenario of the universe" which equally explains those facts.
I think it will turn out that a full understanding of the nature of the universe requires a step beyond what the purely math based approach produces.
A different sort of difference from anything suggested here.
I wait in hope that some 'cross subject' genius provides more clues to the matter.
regards David L.
It is clear that David does not, in fact, understand quantum mechanics, its current state of affairs in human understanding, nor even the purpose of physics itself.
By saying that "this idiot writer has managed to see an alternate 'scenario of the universe' which equally explains those facts," he exposed a very common misconception about science in general. Science is exactly what he dismissed as idiocy: explaining models of phenomena we observe, NOT finding some absolute truth. If one explanation "equally explains those facts," then that explanation is equally valid as any, but it should not be taken as a sign that either model is wrong.
Even Feynman professed the need to question the existence of electrons! This goes to show that even explanations of what we see are never going to be absolute.
I am not a mathematician. I am but a curious neophyte seeking "input." regarding "truths." At this moment in "our" evolution, we exist as an infant species deeply and profoundly involved in an attempt to adapt to the uniqueness of an anomaly we describe as "consciousness."
Our journey to this point in our evolution, as a somewhat aware species, has served to whet our appetite for understanding "all" of the myriad physical and metaphysical mysteries which abound within and without "existence."
To me, the word "googol" relates quantitatively to both the micro and the macro cosmos. I am sure that if our species can mature and overcome the caprices of adolescence, there will come a time when man will unravel the physics of both realms and work to create a viable world within which all life can exist in balance and communion.
I see a cosmos that exists as a result of serendipitous physics. Not by an imagined thoughtful,caring creator.
It "ALL," is Much too complicated to be understood by us at this point in time.
I am currently immersed in trying to understand the concepts proposed by the "M" theory, the "Mother" of all theories.
"Input,input,input!"
Comments regarding the ability to do the math have some relevance, but even people who can do the math are perplexed by the apparent paradoxes. Therefore, while mathematical skill and a more formal grasp of the concepts are helpful, they have failed to resolve the "apparent" paradoxes for almost a century now.
Consider that the paradox itself may not be well defined. It has not been established that scale is irrelevant and that viewing the cat as a wave function is as valid or useful as modeling an atom as one.
The real paradox is not so much that an object as big and complicated as a cat might exist as a superposition of states, but rather, that somewhere between relatively primitive systesm at atomic scales and highly complex systems at macroscopic scales the wave function model as a superposition of states becomes untenable. Why is that and how does it happen?
There are indeed theories about how scale and complexity add new wrinkles -- as Phil Anderson at Princeton famously said, more is different. I am not an expert on any of these theories, but with enough motivation anyone can find them. For starters look up "quantum decoherence."
When you mentioned you were confounded that rules apply to large objects and not small, were you referring to the isotope decay? This is a matter that has me entirely dumbfounded... half-lives don't seem logical to me. But I'm happy to hear an intelligent explanation. I've been known to be a bit dense.
I don't ever see the paradox going away. Most of us have an idea that there is an objective reality out there that actually exists, whether we do or not, that we have to deal with. We simply cannot deal with the idea as people (nor perhaps should we) that you, or I, simply have a probablity of x that we exist or do not exist, which is in essence the 'cat' problem.
What confuses me about this is that if I were to place a stick of butter out on the counter and wait, it would melt to a certain point. Then, according to isotopic (?) decay, past that point it would decay half as slowly and so on down the line until it is decayed to ....Okay, I don't remember what happens, but that's not the point. Why woudn't the stick of butter melt at a constant rate (if in a constant environment)?
Now, of course, the universe is not constant, at least, not in our little realm called the world. The earth is changing and the environment is hotter, colder and more volatile at times. But nowhere does my textbook describe the rate of breakdown as related to environmental factors.
In my theory, a stick of butter melts halfway after a certain point in time, and, if environmental factors remained the same, it would complete melting (decaying) after an equal amount of time. I'm seeing on the charts that isotope decay is something that slows exponentially with each half-life and this is where I'm thinking perhaps problems of the universal age may come in.
I have no idea how old the universe is, but if we are adding exponents by way of exponentially increasing the time it takes for isotopes to decay, that would prevent an accurate understanding of the age of the earth and beyond that the universe and beyond that the multiverse (if such a "verse" exists!)
I know I don't know what I am talking about, but I'd very much like to and this is my bone to pick with this topic, so why not begin here?
Take a couple aspirin and write me back if you feel up to it.
Let's split time into 1 second 'blocks' and just look at a single neutron. At 1 sec, the probability that the neutron decays is 50/50. Assume it doesn't. At 2 secs the probability is (crucially) still 50/50. It still doesn't decay. At 3 secs, the probability is still 50/50 and so on.
Think of it like coin tossing. If you toss 10 pennies, you may get 8 heads and 2 tails not 50/50. If you toss 100 pennies you may get 39 heads and 61 tails not 50/50. If you toss 1,000,000 pennies you are likely to get very close to 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails, ie 50/50. It's the same with neutrons. There's so many of them that the 50/50 ratio comes out every time, hence a half life.
Sam B
You Said "Quantum aint intuitive, and it really doesn't make any sense,"
So then, if we substitute one system that doesn't make sense (Physics) for another that doesn't make sense (Philosophy) what have we done but substituted one nonsensical system for another? This argument is truly as old as Aristotle and Plato (See the clouds of Aristophanes.)
I think there are unrevealed truths in both worlds and I further (intutively-- egads!!) believe that all physical is linked to the immaterial in ways which are currently inexplicable, but which will be explored by those who dare to invigorate science by using their imaginations.
I have a friend who says "Apples to coconuts" whenever I make a statment such as this, but my retort is that apples and coconuts are both fruit. So what's the problem? They are not the same fruit, but they are fruit.
We believe in physics because we are humans. We have a little faith in philosophy because we are humans. We are linked to both worlds-- mathematical and emotional because we carry systems of complex messages on the tops of our bodies.
Consider, Sam: We would not have the motivation to analyze mathematical systems if we did not think the "philosophy" behind the so called non metaphysical (or simply, physical) had some merit. It's all physical and it's all metaphysical.
There's a book out about a guy who lost his sight at age three and regains the use of his sight through an operation. It is an amazing revelation into the perceptions of the brain. Don't forget...all this is in our heads. Most of the time we are speculating. The only difference is some of us are taking more educated stabs in the dark than others.
I also have to add that mine is likely the least educated stab. But it doesn't stop me from speculating. It's entertaining. It's invigorating and it is what makes a life a life.
I realize, that reality is really realative. thats real.
what is the distance of the coast of califonia?
YOU CAN NEVER TELL THE TRUTH!
If at the sub-atomic level there appears to be any random behavior, I would suggest that we are getting closer to the doorway! My education is not as vast as many who have posted, but I do remember a college prof who told me once that if I didn't like the answer I was getting, then perhaps I should change the question. When light goes around corners, and waves can choose to be particles, maybe the question comes back to what is faster than light? Perhaps the decision to be or not to be light...
Forge on, my dear physicists, I think soon we will have the portal I seek, even though it can not of course exist, I will use it just the same.
Exactly.
So, for instance, I want to study geology. But to do that, I have to study physics, calculus, and chemistry. Great. I love to study. No problem. Except.
I'm going to study these subjects which may or may not be taught correctly, which may or may not be relevant to my interests, which may or may not be correct in their assumptions. I realize that we have to have a starting place, but It almost seems as if any starting place will do. The main challenge I have in becoming educated is not allowing the experts to confuse me.
Daunting.
I thought of another analogy, if we are in a video game, we have an optional outcome. We can die or not die, it makes no diference, if we are dead in video game, then we are dead, if not, then no. Damn I am dumb...
I don't think that this is the place for an evoloutionary discussion but Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in 'This wonderful life' that if you could rewind the 'tape of life' it almost certainly wouldn't come out the same way if you replayed it. Something quite remarkable seems to have happened between 1 and 3 million years ago to an ancestor that took us down the road of enhanced 'brain power', abstraction, conceptulisation, language etc etc. So far it appears to be a unique mutation and may never have happened before and may never happen again. We are that 'happy monster'.
So, sacriligious or no, we still don't know/can't prove that god (God) is or is not real. Which, to extend the analogy would put physics right about the same level as religion-- both experimental in nature. I have no problem with this, being a person of prayer and all, but I'm curious how others compensate for the "lack of proof" when it comes to this "science."
Also find it interesting that some who deny the existence of a greater power hold fiercely to the value of words-- which is another "experimental science" and which also is based quite unsurely on perception/associations. Is there anything real in this world?
Quantum physics makes predictions which turn out statistically to be quite accurate. I don't think you can make any predictions about God which you can either prove or disprove and there lies the rub.
While you can equate religious belief with scientific theory on day one, the scientific method of trying to disprove the theory (ie finding observations that don't match predictions) sets it apart from day 2.
If you want another (sacrilegious) analogy about God, try http://malcolmgoodson.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-god-beetle.html
I would check what the buddhist teachings on emptiness say about the matter. I think buddhism is the answer to combining knowledge about the 'reality' and everyday life. At least the highest teachings Buddha gave, the so called 'Diamond Way Buddhism'.
Best Wishes and respect for all the scientists.
Lukasz K
As for knowing more, I'll repeat myself. Richard Feynman "QED. The strange theory of light and matter" The BEST introduction to quantum physics by the man who 'invented' QED (quantum electrodynamics)and is , perhaps the most lucid writer of physics for the layman EVER. Oh and for the less well read, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for QED, tho' shared, tho' the other other solutions were so....tortuous!
David Deutsch wrote a paper proposing a quantum computer so complex it could actually simulate the human brain - in a superposition of states. This QC would observe the outcome of some quantum coin toss, and one component of the mental superposition would observe heads, while simultaneously another would observe tails. Deutsch used this device to argue that the separate components had to exist simultaneously in parallel universes. But this argument contained a flaw: in order to prevent collapse, before interrogating the QC we would have to run its entire process in reverse, rolling it back to the original state in which it would not remember either observation.
This shows the peril of mixing our intuitions about life and consciousness into arguments about fundamental physics. If someone as smart as Deutsch could fall into this trap, I think the rest of us should confine our discussion to Schrodinger's spins and leave the kittens alone.
The cat is however just representative and dealing with two entangled photons is just as difficult in an intuitive (non mathematical) sense as dealing with the cat is. Without the maths, QM is shot full of these paradoxes. QM is and can only be consistent at the level of the toolbox (maths). Any attempt to deal with it outside of the math only leads to confusion and the cat!
Therefore even though I have no idea about the maths behind quantum theory, surely this is a bad allegory of any paradox the theory throws up?
It makes one think that quantum particles ARE in fact one thing or the other, but that we simply cannot know which until they are measured...which is surely too simple an explanation...I'd like to know how we know they are either one thing or the other (or both) BEFORE they are 'measured'...surely knowing this must constitute some degree of 'measuring' already?
Please reply and enlighten me.
Let's say you collide a couple of particles. The probability of getting, say a kaon and a pion of x energy from this collision is, say, 70%. Do the experiment 10,000 times and like as not you'll get the above pairing around 7,000 times BUT in any one experiment you cannot predict exactly what you will get, only that there is a 70% chance of the above pairing being measured.
You might find the November and January posts starting with 'MGs BIG mouth....' in November 2008 and later ones starting 'QED' in the title at http://malcolmgoodson.blogspot.com worth a read for a simplistic, non mathematical kind of explanation. Feynman diagrams still on the drawing board but they will be coming:)
Put another way, I have my own universe to explore and anything outside of my conscious sphere does not exist until my consciousness brings it into being. Therefore there is no box containing a cat until my consciousness decides to create it. In this way, the cat in your universe might be alive at the same time it is dead in my universe. Since I cannot “be” your consciousness as you cannot “be” mine, you are created by me in my universe and I am created by you in yours. We can agree or disagree since inside our own universe we set the rules. Since it is impossible to die within your own lifetime, there are no paradoxes.
This makes us all gods (albeit gods with Alzheimer’s) inhabiting worlds of our own making. This also makes sense since a single, all-knowing god inhabiting an infinite universe would be one bored SOB. I do not limit this to human consciousness, either. Anything that reacts to conditions has rudimentary consciousness. A plant turning its leaves toward the sun or a flagellate bacteria swimming toward warmth inhabits its own parallel universe.
Time is another oddball dimension that has to be present for the universe to unfold. Theoretically, as I understand it, time ceases at the speed of light. If that is true, anything traveling at the speed of light is outside of the time dimension, which also puts it out of the space dimension, since matter traveling at the speed of light has infinite mass. Whatever consciousness is, it must interfere with and slow light perceptibly projecting the material world through itself like a multidimensional prism, thus “creating” observable phenomenon conditioned by the expectations of consciousness.
If this is the how of it, the why still eludes me. It probably has something to do with the impossibility of nothingness without somethingness to compare it to.
Dwight
If we take that all subatomic particles are quantum particles, and a bunch of them put together right give us a cat, why isn't a cat a quantum object?
Whether or not a cat knows it is dead or alive etc.. begs the question of how 'alive' something has to be to collapse a wave function. If we follow this path, we have the difference between humans and animals, from there to plants, then inanimate objects (and I left out AI which is another can of worms).
Picking up on a point from another poster, I do not believe QM states that when one quantum object interacts with anything else, its wave function collapses, else we could not have entangled quantum states. Having an 'almost closed' box yields the same strangeness of a dead/alive cat, until we examine the output from the leaks, the states are superposed.
Or at least that's what I think I'm supposed to believe.
To Marcus at February 3, 2009 5:31 AM
I would like to refer you to Bell's test experiments on Wikipedia. Besides the loopholes shown, if the theory holds, it shows that the idea of local reality that we cannot know (can't tell if a particle is spin up or down) is incorrect compared to a superposition of states (particle is in both until we look).
This is based on the differing results generated by each theory, and how our observations fit with QM's superposition of states.
According to my professor, this is the first time QM has reached over into the philosophical and shown that no, it is not a matter of interpretation or a mathematical tool to use state superposition because we don't know what state it 'actually' is in, this is how it is. Until proven wrong of course.
Hex
Thanks again!
Medawar believes that it was actually the hymn-writer, John Henry Newton, whilst living in Olney, Buckinghamshire. And it was actually for his pet hare in the first instance (" Old Puss" in rural English.)
Although hares have a near 360 degree field of view, the eyeballs are often slewed backwards to track and effectively evade whatever is behind them. High energy collisions with whatever is in front of the hare are surprisingly frequent.
The Reverend Newton, a former slave-trader, devised something based on a ship's cannon port. "Old Puss" could crash through this in fine style, without any apparent harm.
Medawar thinks that this device may still be in the house on Olney.
how the hell did he do the chat with einstein thing?!
Remember the observation is also one point in space. Doesn't the theory also imply there were infinite observations and each might have observed something different? Somehow our awareness prevents us from observing the full spectrum, although sometimes we can imagine it.
My glimpse was that every time we say "maybe," we are engaging in a quantum act that shifts to a classical act only at the time of decision. Until then all bets are ON. I sat up blinking and getting the feeling that we actually use quantum decision making all the time. Or use quantum decision making -- actually -- in everyday life.
Seems like whenever we make a decision we construct quantum maybe-trees, as if, by metaphor, there are various parties to attend that weekend, and so far it's yes to all! And only when we make the decision do we collapse the branches of the maybe-tree that don't pertain to the decision made. Or in sports, seems like when a defender shuffles backward, not committing to any single movement of the opponent in front of him or her, but instead, constructing quantum maybe-trees as to what might happen, that defender is operating under a quantum model. Or walking down a crowded sidewalk in New York City, when the strategy is not to barrel though, but wistfully migrate and navigate the myriad presentations of where to go next,that is a quantum strategy.
So, I guess, late night lucidity has shown me that quantum computing might be a great idea, maybe it's easier and faster to collapse a maybe-tree branch than it is to build a silicon one. Maybe?
Or possibly the smoke he is blowing from his big fat joint - for his eternal amusement!
Whatever - wish I was as erudite as you guys - brillant stuff x
Say hello to yor cat from mine!
Kieran
matter + space = one.
everything = one.
all is one.
Starboy
When I attempt to use my everyday practiced logic on "all things quantum" it falls short...when I meditate and allow myself to sense the movement of "all things life" it appears to me that my grasping it depends greatly on how vast I allow my perspective - not only in thought perception (logic) but feeling (intuitive knowing) expand...
If I see myself as a collection of vibrating particles forming "me" (this current point of view i have)...I can perhaps consider having another self perceiving and experiencing its own reality collapsing the me (as I know "me" in this current reality). I collapse my other points of view in this reality by choosing, and they collapse me in their reality my choosing...an all of this is at the same "time".
blink, blink, blink....
one of the ways I explore "physical" reality is to look at all we have created so far as clues...something like TiVo..pausing, recording..having the "same show" play at the "same time" in different "spaces"... and that little universe on that wide screen has no clue about the other universes currently playing (even itself as reruns) as it plays its own reality on channel whatever.
just something I ponder..
sorry to go on just wanted to tell all those scientists out there not to look down on others ideas. many of the big break throughs in science come from everyday people anyway.
you never know where the important infomation in life is going to come from --so always listen.
thinking you are better than other people will only hinder yourself from learning
You may want to check this out: Journeyman Philosopher.
The presentation is mediocre, but I like to think the content makes up for it. Readability is another criterion I rate highly. In my case, I let others be the judge.
Regards, Paul.
So I ask you to forgive us our trespasses as we tread on newly formed synapses this concept of all things quantum. Peace and long life to you.
Alot!
I understand now!
thanks again,
Katia
K~)<
Oh and btw, the gospel according to John holds one of many examples of verses indicating that God wants to know you better. You! Not the organized church downtown. If you go checking your brain at the door of any room where people are speaking on authority of either God or science you are wasting both your time and theirs. So rock on TK with an open heart AND mind!
I have passion for what quantum theory reveals about our potential individually and collectively. Forgive the lack of scientific termonology in this post...As an intuitive, my subconscious mind tends to "communicate" in pictures, analogies, visuals etc. (hence the sweater example) when I begin to attempt to explain something there are simply not enough words available to explain .... :)
-Kristin
http://www.kristinmackey.com
This is still an attempt to cling to the scientific 'discovery' paradigm, that science and scientists make discoveries of things 'already there'.
It is much much stranger that that.
It could equally be said that there is nothing 'out there'.
And that science generates, or brings forth its own coherent distinctions in the process of experimental observation.
Can anyone outline an experiment that might be performed to demonstrate unequivocally that a tree makes a noise when there is no one there to hear it.
An experiment is not an experiment if there is no one there to observe the results.
tl728744@gmail.com
Is it the ultimate aim of human existence to "know the mind of god" and therefore become gods ourself?
Welcome to the Church of Quantum Physics.