At Scientific American: Quantum theory does not require a conscious observer

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 10, 2018

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Mind, Philosophy, Physics, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit.svg — double slit experiment

Science writer Anil Ananthaswamy Intro of surveys current theories:

If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.Anil Ananthaswamy, “What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?” at Scientific American

One wants to ask, if we cannot make any claims about the nature of reality and there is no agreement about the nature of consciousness, how does Ananthaswamy know that claims about the role of consciousness are “premature,” “misleading,” or “wrong?” Hasn’t he ruled out any basis for such decisions?

See also: At Nature: For now, “uncertainty seems the wisest position” on the implications of quantum mechanics

and

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Comments

re 48: This discussion has nothing to do with atheism. There are theists who question the conclusion that consciousness is necessary for wave function to collapse to specific states. I'll note that other than posting quotes and links to videos, you have not offered any answers to the questions in 30 and 47jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

jdk, You say
Yes, and again, it is the act of measurement, and the way the measurement is set up, that determines the eventual information we can and do obtain.
Here's the essential difference you don't seem to understand: whether or not an electron/wave simply interacts with sensors, silvered mirrors and landing screens does not determine whether or not they form interference or clump patterns. What determines the clump or interference pattern is whether or not the particular landing screen is an indicator that the photon must have gone through slit A or B. Please watch the first video I posted first (introduction to the 2-slit experiment), and the 2nd after (delayed choice/quantum eraser). They aren't that long and are both pretty entertaining. You seem to think that the mere interaction with a physical device determines whether or not we will see a clump or an interference patterns. That has been repeatedly proven to NOT be the case. The determining factor is whether or not an observer can know, from the experiment, the slot it went through. If we cannot know, we get an interference pattern. If we can know, we get a clump pattern. The only difference is if we can know which slit the electron or photon goes through. Why would the landing pattern change simply because we CAN determine which slit the electron passed through?William J Murray_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

The measurement problem is a problem only if you refuse to accept that the observer plays a fundamental role. i.e. atheism is, once again, shown to be untenable,bornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

re 45: ba, can you summarize in your own words what the video explains about the measurement problem?jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

wjm, I watched the first two minutes of the video Quantum Eraser. The video shows the wave that has passed through the slits still travelling as a wave, and then when the observer opens his eyes the electrons become particles. Surely this is only meant metaphorically? Or is the video really implying that if the observer kept his eyes shut a interference pattern would show on the screen, but if his eyes were open two bars would show?jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

The Measurement Problem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUEbornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

re 41: Thanks, wjm. (I posted 44 before I saw 43, by the way.) You write,
As I’ve explained, none of this is about any consciousness directly perceiving the phenomena at the time it occurs; it’s about how much knowledge about the position/pathway of the electron/photon we have set our observational experiment up to gather and when in the course of the experiment it is gathered.
I agree with that. I am trying to describe the QM position that consciousness observation is not a necessary component of wave function collapse, which you seem to be agreeing with here.
If you set the sensor up prior to the slit entrance, all electrons behave as particles so it is not the sensor screen they land on which collapses the wave function. I don’t know where you got that idea, but no QM theorists thinks that as far as I know.
I agree with that. My statement that the wave function collapses at the screen was in respect to the basic two-slit situation, not the one where a sensor is present before the slits.
If you set the sensor up before the slit, it doesn’t matter if anyone is currently watching or if they don’t check the results for a week. Simply “interacting” with a sensor does not collapse the wave behavior into particle behavior as demonstrated in the 2nd video I posted above. The clear determining factor was whether or not the supposed pathway of an electron could or could not be determined by the sensor it lands on.
Yes, and again, it is the act of measurement, and the way the measurement is set up, that determines the eventual information we can and do obtain. But it is not conscious observation of the results that causes anything to happen. That is all I am trying to say. I understand and accept the results of QM and the ways they change our notion of the ultimate nature of the world. I'm not questioning that.jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

The issue here is what constitutes an “observation” in QM. A standard understanding is that an observation is the same as a measurement. The various devices you mention (either the screen, the sensor before the slits, or the sensors after the slits) are not conscious, and our consciousness does not have to be present for them to have their affect.
I've answered this. The final behavioral state of the electron is directly determined by the capacity of an observer to know which slit the photon came from. It is not otherwise related to the simple fact that the electron interacts with screens, sensors or silvered mirrors. The brute physical nature of the interaction makes no difference; what makes the difference is if the interaction can inform an observer of the pathway it took. If it cannot, there is an interference pattern at the final screen sensor. If it can, there is a clump pattern at the final screen sensor. I've also already posted two explanatory videos.William J Murray_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

jdk, the entire room, indeed even the entire universe can be described by a wave function. i.e. Schrodinger's cat!
Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
Of note: at the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner's Friend are highlighted:
Divinely Planted Quantum States - video https://youtu.be/qCTBygadaM4?t=512
jdk, You want to desperately to presuppose that the room can exist independently, in the past, apart from consciousness, i.e. you want "realism" to be true, but, again as the articles I've already referenced indicated, quantum mechanics has simply taken that option of 'realism' away from you and has falsified realism. It is not me that you have a problem with, it is the experiments of quantum mechanics that have consistently falsified local realism, as well as your apriori naturalistic beliefs, that you are having a problem with. I'm doing quite well with my Christian presuppositions in regards to what quantum mechanics is consistently telling us from experiments. :) You are, since you refuse to give up your atheism, the one in an irresolvable jam! As to your erroneous belief that the past can exist independently of conscious observation, I simply point you to Wheeler's delayed choice experiment to falsify your belief:
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: 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. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler "That's the enigma. That our choice of what experiment to do determines the prior state of the electron. Somehow or other we had an influence on it which appears to travel backwards in time." Fred Kuttner - Univ. Of California “We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler Reflecting light off satellite backs up Wheeler's quantum theory thought experiment - October 26, 2017 - Bob Yirka Excerpt: Back in the late 1970s, physicist John Wheeler tossed around a thought experiment in which he asked what would happen if tests allowed researchers to change parameters after a photon was fired, but before it had reached a sensor for testing—would it somehow alter its behavior mid-course? He also considered the possibilities as light from a distant quasar made its way through space, being lensed by gravity. Was it possible that the light could somehow choose to behave as a wave or a particle depending on what scientists here on Earth did in trying to measure it?,,, The experiment consisted of shooting a laser beam at a beam splitter, which aimed the beam at a satellite traveling in low Earth orbit, which reflected it back to Earth. But as the light traveled back to Earth, the researchers had time to make a choice whether or not to activate a second beam splitter as the light was en route. Thus, they could test whether the light was able to sense what they were doing and respond accordingly. The team reports that the light behaved just as Wheeler had predicted—demonstrating either particle-like or wave-like behavior, depending on the behavior of those studying it. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-satellite-wheeler-quantum-theory-thought.html “The concept of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated…”,,,; "The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them,,, is impossible.,,, We can no longer speak of the behavior of the particle independently of the process of observation” - W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York (1958)
In quantum mechanics, as the following video clearly shows, "the now of the mind" takes precedence over past events in time:
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

jdk asks:
If I run the experiment on Sunday, and don’t look into the room until Friday, has there been an interference pattern recorded on the screen during the week, even though no consciousness has perceived the pattern?
As I've explained, none of this is about any consciousness directly perceiving the phenomena at the time it occurs; it's about how much knowledge about the position/pathway of the electron/photon we have set our observational experiment up to gather and when in the course of the experiment it is gathered. If you set the sensor up prior to the slit entrance, all electrons behave as particles so it is not the sensor screen they land on which collapses the wave function. I don't know where you got that idea, but no QM theorists thinks that as far as I know. If you set the sensor up before the slit, it doesn't matter if anyone is currently watching or if they don't check the results for a week. Simply "interacting" with a sensor does not collapse the wave behavior into particle behavior as demonstrated in the 2nd video I posted above. The clear determining factor was whether or not the supposed pathway of an electron could or could not be determined by the sensor it lands on.William J Murray_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

re 38: Thanks for taking time to write your thorough reply, wjm. I believe I understand the additional elements that you described concerning the situation. At one point, you wrote,
There are any number of two-slit experiment videos on YouTube that directly answer your question about observed vs unobserved experimental processes.
I prefer to read rather than watch videos (much more efficient use of my time), but could you point me to one of those videos? I think I also understand the points you make about information, including your last two paragraphs. However, you didn't address the role of consciousness (other than saying videos exists on that subject.) The issue here is what constitutes an "observation" in QM. A standard understanding is that an observation is the same as a measurement. The various devices you mention (either the screen, the sensor before the slits, or the sensors after the slits) are not conscious, and our consciousness does not have to be present for them to have their affect. That is the issue I am addressing.jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

re 37, to ba: I see that are not taking this seriously. I am not doubting that consciousness exists. I am saying that the act of hitting the screen collapses the wave function, not the act of our observing that happen. This is a position held by many QM scientists. If I run the experiment on Sunday, and don't look into the room until Friday, has there been an interference pattern recorded on the screen during the week, even though no consciousness has perceived the pattern?jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

JDK asks @30:
Consider the classic dual-slits scenario depicted in the diagram in the OP. The electrons are in an indeterminate state as they travel from the gun to the screen, where the wave function collapses, and an interference patten develops as more and more electrons arrive at the screen. What happens if this takes place in a closed room with no one watching? Does the interference pattern not exist because there is no consciousness aware of it?
Not sure if the premise of your questions are based on a correct understanding of the experiments. You might familiarize yourself with this basic primer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc First, they shot many electrons through dual slits and got an interference pattern. They thought the electrons were bouncing off of each other and creating an interference pattern when they should have gotten two bar clumps of electron landings (two slits). They started shooting one electron at a time at the two slits and still got an interference pattern. Then, in order to see which slit each electron "actually" went through, they fixed a device to observe which slit the electron "actually" went through right at the entry side of the slits. The electrons stopped acting like waves as soon as we had the capacity to determine which slit they went through. The results was the two-bar clumps and the only thing that had changed was a sensor placed just before the slits that could detect which slit the electrons went through.
And what happens if we are filming it, and later watch the film? Will we see the pattern? If in both cases above the pattern appears when we are not present, how is our consciousness making it real? Could any of you who support the statements I quoted above, or something like them, answer my questions and explain the role consciousness would be playing in the creation of the interference pattern?
There are any number of two-slit experiment videos on YouTube that directly answer your question about observed vs unobserved experimental processes. The question is not really about "observation" itself, but how much knowledge about what we are observing is possible with regards to how we are observing and the limits of information that can be ascertained from our observation. When we just set up a basic two-slit experiment, we are still observing the entire process, but we have very limited potential knowledge about what we are observing. We don't know "which" slit the electron is passing through, so we observe an interference pattern even when we shoot one electron at a time. When we add a sensor just prior to the two slits, our observational capacity includes the ability to determine which slit the electron passes through. The interference pattern stops and the two-bar clump pattern emerges. Think about that. Why would observing which slit an electron goes through change it from behaving like a wave to behaving like a particle? The real interesting experiments are those that set up a series of sensors and half-silvered mirrors on the far side of the slits. Here's a video about the quantum eraser / delayed choice experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnpCH9VRvPg If the path of the electrons can be determined by which sensor they arrive at, they form clump patterns. If the path of the electron (or perhaps they were using photons, I believe it works with either) cannot be determined by their landing at a particular sensor, we get an interference pattern. What that means is that how each electron interacts with a sensor (wave or particle) depends on the scientist's capacity to determine (even if initially unobserved) which slit any particular electron came from. Because two of the many sensors were set up in a way where electrons from both slits could land on either sensor, those two sensors showed interference patterns. So, it's not just about "observing". It's about when and how one observes, and how much and what kind of information can be gathered by your experimental structure. The implication is clear: if we can know which slit an electron passes through either before or after it passes through it, it acts like a particle. If we cannot determine which slit it goes through, it acts like a wave.William J Murray_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

jdk asks: "Humor me, ba. Answer the questions." I will as soon as you look into the room without being consciousness. :)bornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Humor me, ba. Answer the questions. People much more knowledgeable than me consider them important questions to answer. If the answer is as simple as you seem to imply, you ought to be able to explain.jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

jdk asks "So ba, what happens to the interference pattern if no one ever looks inside the room? How is consciousness collapsing the wave function in that case?" LOL you are kidding right? ha ha ha ha habornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

I see that ba didn't address my questions. I think they are good questions that one who believes that "that (material) reality cannot exist without consciousness" needs to be able to at least attempt to answer. So ba, what happens to the interference pattern if no one ever looks inside the room? How is consciousness collapsing the wave function in that case? What do you think?jdk_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Moreover, besides the denial of free will being self-refuting, in quantum mechanics we find that the reality of free will is now supported by what is termed ‘contextuality and/or the Kochen-Speckter Theorem With contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation” and “Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.”
Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit. Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.html
And as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
One concluding thought, although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. states it as such:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.” – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
Verse:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
bornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

jdk, because of his apparent apriori animus against God and Christianity in particular, wants desperately to save some type of view of reality where the material world exists independently of mind. i.e. jdk wants, for whatever severely misguided reason, 'material' to be primary instead of the Mind of God to be primary. Yet, as has been shown to jdk numerous times, the denial of the primacy of the Mind of God, and the denial of his own mind in particular, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science. I briefly touched on this point recently in another thread in response to Seversky.
This is where methodological naturalism commits epistemological suicide in regards to science. Logic and reason, i.e. goal directed thinking, simply can never be based on a worldview that holds “complete disorder and confusion” to be the basis of the universe as well as our thoughts. As Michael Egnor stated, “Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-world-naturalism-prevents-us-from-seeing/#comment-664754
Usually, when pressed on this point of the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within naturalism, jdk will disingenuously switch from defending a purely materialistic and/or naturalistic view of reality to defending some concept of eastern mysticism, i.e. panpsychism and/or pantheism, where consciousness already exists in some form in the universe. A concept of eastern mysticism that he, as far as I can tell, (purposely?) leaves in an ill-defined state. Thus, as far as I can tell since he has never rigorously defines his philosophical position for me, jdk, when push comes to shove on the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within his naturalism, abandons defending a purely naturalistic/materialistic view of reality and holds to some view of reality where consciousness is somehow already embedded within the universe on some level. Previously, Stephen Meyer has humorously called such disingenuous debating tactics by atheists, such as jdk's disingenuous debating tactic in which he switches positions to avoid falsification, to be the ABG hypothesis, i.e. to be the "Anything But God" hypothesis. :) And as I asked him previously, (and never received a clear answer to), does jdk, since he holds to some type of eastern mysticism, also believe in a soul that can live past the death of our material bodies like Stuart Hameroff does?
“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300
It is also interesting to note that Stuart Hameroff, though holding to eastern mysticism, is still, none-the-less, scorned by atheists:
Being the skunk at an atheist convention – Hameroff – 2006 Excerpt: In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief”. Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist. Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse - the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality. After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design). At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely silence.,,, http://quantum.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/prod/content/being-skunk-atheist-convention
In regards to Hameroff’s model, although I very much enjoyed the feisty, “Galileo”, way in which Stuart Hameroff defended his model against the “atheists’ inquisition” at the convention, I hold that Hameroff’s model falls short of finding complete agreement with quantum mechanics, and thus I find his model falls short of truly explaining consciousness. The primary reason why I think Hameroff model falls short of finding complete agreement with quantum theory is primarily because of his pantheistic metaphysical view of reality. A metaphysical view of reality in which consciousness, for him, is somehow, if I read him right, co-terminus with the space-time of material reality at the Planck scale. Something he calls ‘proto-consciousness’ at the fine (Planck) scale. Simply put, he holds to 'realism', i.e. he holds to the view of reality that the universe exists independently of conscious observation. Yet, 'realism' is falsified.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality? Inexplicable lab results may be telling us we’re on the cusp of a new scientific paradigm By Bernardo Kastrup on April 19, 2018 Excerpt: ,, according to the current paradigm, the properties of an object should exist and have definite values even when the object is not being observed: the moon should exist and have whatever weight, shape, size and color it has even when nobody is looking at it. Moreover, a mere act of observation should not change the values of these properties. Operationally, all this is captured in the notion of “non-contextuality”: ,,, since Alain Aspect’s seminal experiments in 1981–82, these predictions (of Quantum Mechanics) have been repeatedly confirmed, with potential experimental loopholes closed one by one. 1998 was a particularly fruitful year, with two remarkable experiments performed in Switzerland and Austria. In 2011 and 2015, new experiments again challenged non-contextuality. Commenting on this, physicist Anton Zeilinger has been quoted as saying that “there is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure [that is, observe] about a system has [an independent] reality.” Finally, Dutch researchers successfully performed a test closing all remaining potential loopholes, which was considered by Nature the “toughest test yet.”,,, It turns out, however, that some predictions of QM are incompatible with non-contextuality even for a large and important class of non-local theories. Experimental results reported in 2007 and 2010 have confirmed these predictions. To reconcile these results with the current paradigm would require a profoundly counterintuitive redefinition of what we call “objectivity.” And since contemporary culture has come to associate objectivity with reality itself, the science press felt compelled to report on this by pronouncing, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality.” The tension between the anomalies and the current paradigm can only be tolerated by ignoring the anomalies. This has been possible so far because the anomalies are only observed in laboratories. Yet we know that they are there, for their existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, when we believe that we see objects and events outside and independent of mind, we are wrong in at least some essential sense. A new paradigm is needed to accommodate and make sense of the anomalies; one wherein mind itself is understood to be the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-quantum-anomalies-make-us-rethink-reality/
Thus, although Hameroff himself appealed to quantum mechanics, i.e. 'quantum micro-tubules', to develop his model of quantum consciousness, quantum mechanics comes back around and falsifies his pantheistic view of reality. Simply put, Hameroff's postulation of ‘proto-consciousness’ at the Planck scale of the universe falls short since, according to quantum mechanics, the universe 'does not exist when we're not observing it'. Pantheism aside and to move on to naturalism, the main epistemological failure within the atheist's naturalistic worldview, as briefly touched upon previously, is his denial of free will. As Martin Cothran states, "The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order."
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
And as to presuming 'a perspective outside the physical order' for free will so as to preserve a 'logical' universe that can be rationally understood, we find that free will, much to the consternation of atheists, is 'built' into quantum mechanics. As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
Basically Weinberg, since he is an atheist, rejects the instrumentalist approach because of free will. (In fact he has basically 'given up' on understanding quantum mechanics altogether.),,, It is just plain bizarre that someone would think it ‘reasonable’ to reject the instrumentalist approach of quantum mechanics because of free will. As mentioned previously, to reject free will is to undermine any ability that we might have had to reason rationally in the first place. i.e. It is epistemologically self-defeating. As Michael Egnor recently pointed out, the denial of free will is self-refuting:
Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield on Free Will – Michael Egnor – July 26, 2018 Excerpt: For a philosophical example, consider that affirmation or denial of free will is a proposition, which is a statement that may or may not be true. But matter has no truth value — propositions aren’t material things. Matter just is; it is neither true nor false. Thus, when a materialist claims that material causes preclude the possibility of free will, he is also claiming that his own opinion cannot be true (or false). Denial of free will on the basis of materialistic determinism is self-refuting. … https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/neurosurgeon-wilder-penfield-on-free-will/
bornagain77_{September 12, 2018
September
09
Sep
12
12
2018
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Wow, Jack- if there is a room that would mean that consciousness exists. If someone set up the room for the experiment it means that consciousness exits. How would anyone know what happens if no one is there to witness it?ET_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

In a related thread, I quoted the following: News wrote,
Philip Cunningham (bornagain77) kindly forwarded this, noting that quantum mechanics has repeatedly confirmed the startling conclusion that (material) reality cannot exist without consciousness.
And in comment 2, ba wrote,
Those who hold to the belief that reality can exist without consciousness have been repeatedly falsified by experimental evidence.
This belief is also stated in 28 and 29 above. However, I know that many QM scientists have expressed doubts about this conclusion. So, I have some questions. Consider the classic dual-slits scenario depicted in the diagram in the OP. The electrons are in an indeterminate state as they travel from the gun to the screen, where the wave function collapses, and an interference patten develops as more and more electrons arrive at the screen. What happens if this takes place in a closed room with no one watching? Does the interference pattern not exist because there is no consciousness aware of it? And what happens if we are filming it, and later watch the film? Will we see the pattern? If in both cases above the pattern appears when we are not present, how is our consciousness making it real? Could any of you who support the statements I quoted above, or something like them, answer my questions and explain the role consciousness would be playing in the creation of the interference pattern?jdk_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

I suppose if we follow Anil Ananthaswamy's line of thinking we cannot reference gravity as a possible cause, give that it's nature is not known, and many well respected physicists disagree on the nature of gravity. Determining that a causes b does not require understanding it's nature, simply isolating the cause sufficiently to determine that a certain known phenomena leads to a certain effect. The number of studies done that isolate the wave collapse to a conscience observer are numerous and have been consistently replicated.jcfrk101_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Materialists issue yet another unfounded promissory note contradicted by mountains of hard data and verified experimental results. This has been going on for decades as materialists have come up with one hypothesis after another, all of which have ended up supporting the essential nature of consciousness when actually tested. Go ahead, keep coming up with new experimental nails to put in materialism's coffin.William J Murray_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

re 25: Oh, I see. :-) No, those are just my initials.jdk_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

ba, I would still be interested in a short reply from you as to whether the following is an accurate statement about what you believe:
Material reality cannot exist without consciousness. The belief that reality can exist without consciousness have been repeatedly falsified by experimental evidence. There are people who do not believe this is true, but experiments rule out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made. In your opinion, therefore, such people are wrong.
Is this an accurate summary of your position? What do you personally think?jdk_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

jdk It is just your initials then. JDK stands for Java Development Kit ;) No offense meant of course. Lots of commenters here are from IT myself included ;)Eugene S_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

re 23: No. I'm curious why you would ask me that???jdk_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

jdk Sorry for off-topic. I wanted to ask you, are you a java developer? ;)Eugene S_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

It is also very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know about Special Relativity (and General Relativity): For instance, (in regards to the topic at hand, i.e. tunnel curvature), many people who have had a Near Death Experience frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…” – Jeffrey Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/beyondbelief/experts-death-experience/story?id=14221154#.T_gydvW8jbI The Tunnel and the Near-Death Experience Excerpt: One of the nine elements that generally occur during NDEs is the tunnel experience. This involves being drawn into darkness through a tunnel, at an extremely high speed, until reaching a realm of radiant golden-white light. https://www.near-death.com/science/research/tunnel.html
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel to a higher ‘eternal’ dimension:
“I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
“I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact.,, I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
And in the following quotes, Mary Neal and John Burke both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
“Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I’m trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don’t even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people’s near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own.” Mary C. Neal, MD – To Heaven And Back pg. 71 “Well, when I was taking geometry, they always told me there were only three dimensions, and I always just accepted that. But they were wrong. There are more… And that is why so hard for me to tell you this. I have to describe with words that are three-dimensional. That’s as close as I can get to it, but it’s really not adequate.” John Burke – Imagine Heaven pg. 51 – quoting a Near Death Experiencer
The relationship between eternity and special relativity is touched upon in this post from a few days ago:
Excerpt: The eternity for special relativity is found when a hypothetical observer approaches the speed of light. In this scenario, time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for that hypothetical observer as he reached the speed of light. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/why-we-cant-really-live-forever-via-advanced-technology/#comment-664736
All of this is very interesting for the presuppositions of the Christian Theist in that, whereas atheists have no compelling evidence whatsoever for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have tried to put forth to try to explain away quantum wave collapse, fine-tuning, etc..,,,
Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo
,,, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to our best theories in science, (Quantum Mechanics and Relativity respectfully), and the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity, (as well as appeal to Near Death Experience testimonies) to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
Verses and Music
Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.” Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIvtRg7-Lc
bornagain77_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

In further note to post 11, and the category error that the author of the article in the OP made of assigning the "physicality" of a wave to the "abstract" infinite-dimensional/infinite information quantum wave function. Here is an interesting quote about the infinite dimensional Hilbert Space in quantum mechanics that is much more apt in describing what is actually happening (than the author's category error).
The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem - Mark Steiner - (page 44) Excerpt: Let us now recapitulate: beginning with the concept of a Hilbert space, a certain kind of (usually infinite-dimensional) vector space, and the formal requirement that a unit vector on the space represents all possible information can be gleaned. First, the space cannot be a real vector space; the usual formalism is, therefore, based on a complex Hilbert space. With this formalism the Heisenberg uncertainty principle follows directly. So does the quantization of angular momentum, including the so called "space quantization". So does the prediction that "electron spin" cannot be due to spatial rotation. And so do the selection rules for the spectrum of hydrogen, based on the "nonphysical" concept of parity. The role of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics, then, is much more profound than the descriptive role of a single concept. An entire formalism-the Hilbert space formalism-is matched with nature. Information about nature is being "read off" the details of the formalism. (Imagine reading off details about elementary particles from the rules of chess-castling. en passant-a la Lewis Carro;; in Through the Looking Glass.) No physicist today understands why this is possible.. https://books.google.com/books?id=GKBwKCma1HsC&pg=PA44
And in the following video we are given a glimpse of the 'higher dimensional' nature of the square root of negative one, (as well as given a glimpse at the higher dimensional nature of the 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity).
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxy3JhPRlV0
Gauss's work on complex numbers, like the square root of negative one, extend the idea of the one-dimensional number line to the two-dimensional complex plane by using the number line for the real part and adding a vertical axis to plot the imaginary part. In this way the complex numbers contain the ordinary real numbers while extending them in order to solve problems that would be impossible with only real numbers. This 'higher dimensional number line', particularly this understanding gained for the 'higher dimensionality' of the square root of negative one (i), is essential for understanding the 'wave packet' in quantum mechanics prior to measurement: The history of the square root of negative one is particularly interesting to look at. Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one. Whereas, Gauss, (a devoted Christian), who was the mathematician who finally clearly explained the higher dimensional nature behind the square root of negative one, suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." The author further comments, in the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line.
Complex Magnitudes Excerpt: Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term "imaginary" to describe the square root of negative one, , but Leibniz thought that "The divine spirit found a sublime outlet in that wonder of analysis, that portent of the ideal world, that amphibian between being and non-being, which we call the imaginary root of negative unity." Gauss invented the "complex plane" (shown below) to represent these quantities. He suggested that complex magnitudes be called "lateral" instead of "imaginary" magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded "full civil rights." In the language of Plato's allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent "forms" from a higher dimension casting "shadows" on the real number line. http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/ComplexNum.html
And in quantum mechanics, as mentioned previously, we find that the "higher dimensional" square root of negative one is necessary for describing the wave packet prior to measurement.
Why do you need imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one) to describe Quantum Mechanics? “Quantum theory needs existence of an x such that x^2= -1. The reason for this is that orthogonal function spaces, of dimension greater than 2, cannot exist otherwise. In fact the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement. Even the Canonical Commutation Relation doesn't need it. And nor do the eigenvalue equations. In those, any general scalar will do. But in the wave packet, you need an i.” - Steve Faulkner - Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_you_need_imaginary_numbers_to_describe_Quantum_Mechanics2
Four dimensional space was also mentioned in 'The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality' video. As was the necessity for Four-dimensional space in the formulation General Relativity also mentioned in the video:
Four-dimensional space - with 4-D animation: Excerpt: The idea of adding a fourth dimension began with Joseph-Louis Lagrange in the mid 1700s and culminated in a precise formalization of the concept in 1854 by Bernhard Riemann.,,, Higher dimensional spaces have since become one of the foundations for formally expressing modern mathematics and physics. Large parts of these topics could not exist in their current forms without the use of such spaces.,,, Einstein's concept of spacetime uses such a 4D space, though it has a Minkowski structure that is a bit more complicated than Euclidean 4D space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space
What was not mentioned in the 'The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality' video is that special relativity is itself also based on a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. In fact, the higher dimensional nature of special relativity was a discovery that was made by one of Einstein math professors in 1908 prior to Einstein's elucidation of General Relativity in 1915.
Spacetime Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Minkowski's geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein's development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,, Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
And much like the tunnel curvature of space-time found for a 'hypothetical' observer falling into a gravitational well (i.e. Einstein's General Relativity),,,
Space-Time of a Black hole - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
,,, Much like the tunnel curvature found for General Relativity, in the following video clip on Special Relativity, (which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors), we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Optical Effects of Special Relativity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
bornagain77_{September 11, 2018
September
09
Sep
11
11
2018
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply