Quantum Physics and reality.

[brave_new_world]

Hasn't Bell's theorem been tested and verified over and over again in the lab?

[brave_new_world]

The universe is lazy (or efficient depending on how you look at it). Why be many things (complex) when you can be one (simple)?

Being many things could be simple to the universe. It may only be complex to the human mind that tries to comprehend it.

[Tiggs]

Measuring a quantum state of something would not mean another measurement would produce the same result. Many say this is a result of the something (particle) being in superposition - being all states at once. I disagree with that and say the particular state of the something can only be one thing at a time - it can be one of anything it can be though and this can constantly fluctuate.

I'm afraid, Leonardo, that I'm going to have to welcome you to the Quantum Skeptics Club. Keep a careful eye out for the white coated physicists with pointy sticks and torches.

As you've pointed out, the Copenhagen Interpretation is that quanta are in superposition (all possible states at once) and can only be resolved by observation. Our belief is that quanta fluctuates through all possible states over time, even if that time interval is exceedingly small.

I believe the problem is a question of just how small that time interval is. If it was ludicrously small, then it would appear, to a much slower observer to be in all states at once, as we could not differentiate the changes.

The difference between these two interpretations are massive. One of them implies that the universe is indeed clockwork in nature (Einstein), the other that the universe constantly decides it's own fate through observation(Copenhagen).

So, how do you prove which is true?

The answer to that question is Quantum computing and Qubits.

If the Copenhagen theory is correct, then there should be no theoretical difficulty in constructing a large array of Qubits.

If however, states change over time, then it should become increasingly difficult to construct a large array of Quibits, as synchronisation errors will begin to occur between successive Qubits.

Today, the largest Qubit array in the world is a whopping Six Qubits long. Physicists are already beginning to experience problems with the results, which are largely blamed on Quantum decoherence, which is when they believe the Qubits are accidently being observed by the outside world.

As a further point of note - In that link, it's interesting that the Qubits had to be "Synchronised" for them to work, isn't it?

*winks*

[Tiggs]

Hasn't Bell's theorem been tested and verified over and over again in the lab?

Yes. Very much so. *nods*

I'm not arguing that the experiment is flawed in the way it is performed - just the conclusions drawn from it. If Quantum properties were static, then I'd agree that Bell's theorem ruled out any possibility of locality. However, as I believe that the results generated are exactly the same that I'd expect to see if Quantum properties fluctuated, then, in my opinion, it doesn't actually prove anything.

[Leonardo]

Tiggs,

I'm not so much a Quantum Skeptic as I believe many physicists have misinterpreted others work (such as Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation).

I have posted this before on another thread but I think it's worth posting here:

The Copenhagen interpretation is first and foremost a semantic and epistemological reading of quantum mechanics that carries certain ontological implications. Bohr's view was, to phrase it in a modern philosophical jargon, that the truth conditions of sentences ascribing a certain kinematic or dynamic value to an atomic object are dependent on the apparatus involved, in such a way that these truth conditions have to include reference to the experimental setup as well as the actual outcome of the experiment. Hence, those physicists who accuse this interpretation of operating with a mysterious collapse of the wave function during measurements do not understand a word of it. Bohr accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real. It makes sense to talk about a collapse of the wave function only if, as Bohr put it, the ψ-function can be given a pictorial representation, something he strongly denied.

This is from the link I provided earlier in the thread. In case you think it's some loony professor's theory - this paper is in the official Stanford Encyclopedia. Physicists who talk of a waveform collapse are basically misunderstanding what Bohr meant when he stated that one could not use the classical concept to describe a quantum object. Bohr's CI waveform was symbolic, you could use it to describe the states a quantum object could be in but, once observed, you had to revert to the classical concept to complete the description. He did not mean the quantum object existed in all states at once.

I believe many physicists are over-elaborating modern physics. They look for complexity where simplicity would suffice. The universe is a simple, efficient machine. Learn to separate the physics from the philosophy.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Leonardo

[brave_new_world]

. He did not mean the quantum object existed in all states at once.

I believe many physicists are over-elaborating modern physics. They look for complexity where simplicity would suffice. The universe is a simple, efficient machine. Learn to separate the physics from the philosophy.

But also Bohr believed that nothing existed beyond the subatomic realm. And with the waves whether they are real or just symbolic for probabilities that is still up for debate. Quantum Physics can never be free from philosophical implication for the very reason that the observer plays a part in determining what form a particle will take whether it be a wave or particle. Because of this the physics will never be separated from the philosophy. Even in Macrscopic experiments we are always the observer. Whether the observer is interacting energy or consciousness.

Does a tree make a sound even though someone isn't there to hear it????? We can never know without an observer. Why should a symbolic wave collapse into a symbolic particle because of an observer??????? Why should an observer make a difference??? Objectivity and subjectivity can no longer be held as separate but as only existing together.

The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probabiltiy wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations....Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective???? ---Max Born

Edited February 5, 2007 by brave_new_world

[Tiggs]

The role of the observer and the wavefunction is pretty much what the Copenhagen Interpretation is all about.

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, upon observation, the wavefunction magically "decides" to be a particle in one state or another. I disagree.

I submit the idea that two or more waves need to interact in order to become a particle, hence the illusion that an observer is required.

When left to it's own devices, the quantum wave will do what waves do best - modulate. On subsequent interaction, the phase of the two waves will dictate the properties of the particle created.

As simple as that.

[Leonardo]

But also Bohr believed that nothing existed beyond the subatomic realm. And with the waves whether they are real or just symbolic for probabilities that is still up for debate. Quantum Physics can never be free from philosophical implication for the very reason that the observer plays a part in determining what form a particle will take whether it be a wave or particle. Because of this the physics will never be separated from the philosophy. Even in Macrscopic experiments we are always the observer. Whether the observer is interacting energy or consciousness.

brave,

The observer does not determine (i.e. affect) what is observed. The observation takes place at a specific time when the object is in a specific state. Apart from philosophical speculation on the part of physicists there is no evidence that the observer changes the state of the object (although using high energies to observe objects has an unknown effect on that object) for the simple reason you can't know what the state was until observed.

If, knowing all possible states of an object, an observation is made and the result is not one of those possible states then I would concur that the observation has affected the object to change its' state. I don't know if such an observation has been made and would appreciate a link from someone in the know if this is the case.

The equipment used to make any observation must be taken into account when making statements about that observation. This is not saying that it will change the object but it may influence the accuracy of the observation by introducing unknowns into observational measurements.

[brave_new_world]

I submit the idea that two or more waves need to interact in order to become a particle, hence the illusion that an observer is required.

What do you mean by this? Are you referring to Scalar waves???

Edited February 5, 2007 by brave_new_world

[Leonardo]

The role of the observer and the wavefunction is pretty much what the Copenhagen Interpretation is all about.

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, upon observation, the wavefunction magically "decides" to be a particle in one state or another. I disagree.

Tiggs,

As I stated in my post above, this is only the interpretation other physicists have put on Bohr's work. In the CI itself there is no wavefunction collapse and Bohr never intended there to be one.

So you propose that a particle is a node (or anti-node?) of wave interaction? Interesting, and fairly close to thoughts I have had about the subject in the past. Don't know enough about physics to be able to describe my thoughts yet, but one day...

[brave_new_world]

Yeah there is the "many worlds theory" by High Everett in which every possibility will actualize instead of just one collapsing. We see one of those actualizations in the universe the others happen in parallel ones. And also my favourite which is the holographic theory by David Bohm in which everything is reflected in everything else or as Plato puts it: The universe is a single whole, comprised of many parts that are also wholes. Meaning that the infinite universe is reflected in finite particles etc.

Edited February 5, 2007 by brave_new_world

[Tiggs]

So you propose that a particle is a node (or anti-node?) of wave interaction?

Yes. It's the only way I can logically explain what happens in the dual-slit experiments without having to accept that all Quanta "magically" know what all other Quanta are doing. It also rather neatly explains why quanta appear to have a dual nature - They propogate as a wave, and interact to form particles...

Brave, I have no idea what a Scalar wave is

[brave_new_world]

Brave, I have no idea what a Scalar wave is

Spherical waves, in and out waves that interact to give a particle effect.

[brave_new_world]

Awesome quantum physics site

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quan...y-Mechanics.htm

Explains the scalar waves as well.

Again:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quan...y-Mechanics.htm

Hope you enjoy.