L&FP, 65: So, you think you understand the double slit experiment? (HT, Q & BA77)

_{kairosfocus

February 5, 2023

Academic Freedom, Logic and Reason, Physics}

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

So, here we go:

And, the rise of solid state laser pointers makes this sort of exercise so much easier, BUT YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET SUCH A BRIGHT SOURCE INTO YOUR EYE AS THIS MAY CAUSE RETINAL BURNS THUS BLIND SPOTS. (I recall, buying and assembling a kit He-Ne laser to have this exercise for my High School students. We had a ball, using metre sticks stuck to a screen with blu-tack, to observe and measure effects from several metres away.)

So, now, what about, electrons:

Notice, the pattern here builds up statistically, one spot at a time.

Then, HT BA77 way back, here is Dr Quantum:

Now, if you think you have it all figured out, think again, and again, and again. KF

Comments

Viola Lee @12, How would you know that the moon heats up or not? As soon as you measure/observe ANY effect, then the moon would (retroactively) have been hot. As a quantum effect, it's known as "quantum erasure" or "delayed choice." However, others argue that at a macro scale, there are too many observers/measurements going on, so the "dark side" of the moon would indeed light up, while in the sparse environment of single particles, quantum effects occur more easily. Also note, that even in a miniaturized environment such as in computer memory or microprocessors, the distances are so tiny, that "quantum tunneling" becomes a significant factor, allowing electrons to probabilistically (and perhaps mischievously) jump from one trace to another! This limits the miniaturization of microelectronic components. So, in this example, the "dark side of the moon" are the traces being lit up by the electrons (presumably while playing just the video of the 1939 production of The Wizard of Oz--haha). -QQuerius_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Belfast.Viola Lee_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

BA@8. I respect the breadth of your knowledge, capacity to elucidate, and facility with quotations, but disagree with you at 8, and support VL. VL has a long history of pleading that comments should be comments on the topic. Digressions become exponential when sticking to the topic does not happen, and when the digression leads into interpretation of what the topic is really implying, then into philosophy, where are there are no answers, only questions, the topic can end up being forgotten. When the philosophy shades into theology, rancour sets in. Apologise for this digression, and regret I cannot add anything useful to the topic.Belfast_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

So, BA, I assume you think the moon gets hot. How do you explain that in the absence of any conscious observer?Viola Lee_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Claim: "measurement in terms of an interaction is what collapses the wave form" Yet, "Decoherence" does not explain wave-function collapse. Even the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, rejected 'decoherence' as a coherent explanation in quantum mechanics:
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics - Steven Weinberg - January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics? One common answer is that, in a measurement, the spin (or whatever else is measured) is put in an interaction with a macroscopic environment that jitters in an unpredictable way. For example, the environment might be the shower of photons in a beam of light that is used to observe the system, as unpredictable in practice as a shower of raindrops. Such an environment causes the superposition of different states in the wave function to break down, leading to an unpredictable result of the measurement. (This is called decoherence.) It is as if a noisy background somehow unpredictably left only one of the notes of a chord audible. But this begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches,9 which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10,,,, 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,,,, ,,, 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,,, In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction. 12 http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
And as I pointed out on the other thread, "as far as experimental science itself is concerned, the realist approach is falsified, and the instrumentalist approach is experimentally validated as being true." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775076 Moreover, decoherence has been falsified by what are termed 'interaction-free' measurements. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775064 So again, I find the Christian Theist to be sitting VERY comfortably in regards to what recent findings in quantum mechanics have revealed about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. And I find the atheistic materialist to be, to put it mildly, in severe discordance with what the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is revealing to us about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. Verses:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

So does the back side of the moon get hot? I assume it does, and that the wave function of the photons collapse when they hit the moon, and the energy of the photon is transferred to the substance of the moon. No one has to be watching, but nevertheless the moon heats up. This shows to me that measurement in terms of an interaction is what collapses the wave form, not specifically the presence of consciousness. Could those of you who think that consciousness is necessary for the wave function to collapse explain what you think happens on the back side of the moon in this situation?Viola Lee_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Ba77 at 8, I've come to a similar conclusion.relatd_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

FYI, my background in quantum mechanics includes a college class (long ago) and reading a lot of books on the subject. I find physics mysteries totally intriguing. So, here’s the method I like to follow: 1. Let nature teach me rather than projecting my prejudices and preferences onto nature. 2. Separate experimental results from ideological interpretation, preferring to withhold judgment. 3. Recognize that conceptual frameworks and their supporting mathematics are expendable human-designed models of reality, but not reality. There's always a new mathematics that can be found or invented to support a new model. 4. Understand the weaknesses and shortfalls of current theories. Ask lots of questions. As celebrated photographer, Anselm Adams, is reputed to have said, “Everything interesting happens at the edges.” 5. Remain open to new discoveries and new perspectives. Be willing to go down someone’s path with them uncritically for a distance rather than resorting to immediate a priori rejection. My current interest: Experimental evidence regarding “the measurement problem,” which involves the possibly central effects on quantum phenomena, if any, of (a) consciousness, (b) free will choices, (c) information extraction limits, and (d) information storage and retrieval. For example, this might entail training a monkey or a hen to react to the display of two bars in the double-slit experiment (hopefully without running afoul of a Von Neumann chain). I believe that I’ve read about detection and recording devices used on a double-slit experiment that automatically erase what they’ve recorded, resulting in an undisturbed interference pattern, but I need to confirm this. My favorite authors on the subject: Lee Smolin Leonard Susskind Carlo Rovelli Thomas Marcella Philip Ball Sabine Hossenfelder Rosenblum and Kuttner Anil Ananthaswamy Manjit Kumar Plus, I’d highly recommend Jim Mahaffey’s book, Atomic Accidents for anyone interested in pure horror! For example, did you know that the U.S. accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon on a small American town or that the warhead of an ICBM fell off the top of a missile and hit the bottom of its silo? In both cases, it was either luck or divine intervention that the warheads didn’t go off! What I like to do is download a FREE SAMPLE chapter of a book I’m interested in on my Kindle, and then I decide whether to buy a Kindle version, a hard copy, or delete the sample. However, I can’t recommend getting a Kindle until Amazon requires mandatory drug testing for Kindle’s UI designer, who continues to make the user interface experience as painful and frustrating as possible for people who keep more than three books at a time in their libraries. Caveat emptor! -QQuerius_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

As to the question in the OP, my response is no, I don't understand QM. Like one professor's YouTube video, he said something like, ". . . and after taking my class in quantum mechanics, you'll be able to not understand quantum mechanics as well as I don't." Bornagain77 @2-4, Thanks for the overview of the issues and confounding ideologies. Much appreciated. Viola Lee @5, Your question is similar to the venerable one about whether a tree falling in a forest without anyone present makes a sound. I think it's even mentioned in one of the videos above. Edit: No, it's here: https://youtu.be/txlCvCSefYQ?t=81 Viola Lee @7, Yes, I agree completely. There are also implications for other beliefs and ideologies including cosmic humanism and deterministic materialism. We should drop these from influencing our perceptions and ideas from the experimental results, wherever they might lead at the moment. -QQuerius_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Comments that may stray from what Viola Lee deems appropriate, may henceforth only be submitted to, and approved by, Viola Lee, before they will be allowed to be posted,,,, or not. :)
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
bornagain77_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

It would be good to stick to the subject of the videos, rather than moving the discussion to religious views. The videos don't bring up any religious topics.Viola Lee_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Ba77, I take issue with the following: "And seeing as I find the atheist’s nihilistic worldview to be a vile, and repulsive, worldview that robs man of any real meaning, beauty, and purpose, for his life, then I find it desirable to further shatter the Atheist’s belief that quantum mechanics is somehow compatible with his worldview." In my comments that follow, my goal is not to defend atheism but to expand on what atheists substitute for God. Man is the highest form of life and worthy of praise. So men can only turn to men for advice on all life's questions; how to live, how to view others, what to do and what to believe in a secular sense. The Catholic Church has defined sin as preferring substitutes of what theists know to be the right way to live, right behavior and right action. This is not to say all atheists live outrageously immoral lives but some do. Since God is not considered, or does not exist, they are free to pursue any interest they may think of or come across. There can be nihilism or just indifference. By purposely living without benefit of human religious guidance or contact with God through prayer, at the least, the current 'spirit of the age' can more easily affect them. Yes, some atheists promote nihilism. Some prefer reading or hearing elaborate explanations of some subject to justify or confirm some belief they hold. But this is not new or "modern." Regarding meaning: Jean-Paul Sartre: "Man invents himself." Man creates his own goals and only regards the words of other men for further guidance. Beauty Men who have not learned to see beauty in life may simply ignore it or engage with parts or certain aspects of it. Purpose For most people, survival and paying the bills is enough. Summary: I would say the atheist lives a deficient life. He may be well educated or not. He may decide to post on this site his commitment to materialism, to reality without God. To defend it. But no matter how often he is discredited, to reword or just repeat what he defends and believes regardless of any evidence to the contrary. John 14:6 'Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." 'There is a way that seems right..." Here, we can see that some prefer a way that will lead to death.relatd_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Here's a question: During the full moon the back side of the moon receives no sunlight, and during the new moon the back side gets full sunlight. Does the back side of the moon get hot when we have a new moon?Viola Lee_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

And in regards to quantum entanglement in time, Professor Elise Crullis draws out the 'provocative' implications and states that “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,, Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. Elise Crullis assistant professor in history and philosophy of science at the City College of New York.,,, https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
Moroever, as if that was not provocative enough, with “quantum contextuality”, (which is integral for quantum computing), 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”
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 Quantum contextuality Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. ,,, Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem.[1],,, 1. S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality
And as the newly minted, (Oct. 2022), Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “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 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
In fact, in his Nobel Prize lecture, after highlighting such experiments as the ones that I’ve now referenced, Anton Zeilinger stated, “When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,,
“There’s one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There’s no role at all.”,,, – Anton Zeilinger – 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics – video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland – Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”
Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, not to mention the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum information theory), Einstein’s belief that his 4-D space-time was the correct definition of time, and that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified. In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.” In summation, I find the Christian Theist to be sitting VERY comfortably in regards to what recent findings in quantum mechanics have revealed about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. And I find the atheistic materialist to be, to put it mildly, in severe discordance with what the empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is revealing to us about the ultimate nature, and/or foundation, of reality. Verses:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

In more clearly defining exactly what Henri Bergson actually meant by ‘duration’, and/or “persistence of self identity through time”, it is important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious ‘outside of time’ perspective as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we very much seem to be standing on a ‘tiny’ island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us. In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’ (experiencing now), we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a “Person” who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
In further defining the immaterial mind’s attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Several years after Einstein’s heated exchange with Bergson, which resulted in Einstein failing to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity, Einstein had another encounter with another prominent philosopher,, Rudolf Carnap. In particular, and around 1935, (and on a train no less), Einstein was specifically asked by Rudolf Carnap, “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” – Rudolf Carnap
According to Stanely Jaki, Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said: “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” – Albert Einstein Carnap and Einstein quotes are taken from the last few minutes of this video: Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
Einstein’s ‘categorical. denial that ‘the experience of the now’ can be a part of physical measurement was a very interesting claim for Einstein to make since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics. For instance, the following delayed choice experiment, (that was done with atoms instead of photons) demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality, which falsified ‘realism’, stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion “that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: 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
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics even go one step further and show us, via “quantum entanglement in time”, that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.” and, “Quantum correlations come first, space-time later.”
Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time – 2016 Bizarre quantum bonds connect distinct moments in time, suggesting that quantum links — not space-time — constitute the fundamental structure of the universe. Excerpt: Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,, “If you have space-time, you have a well-defined causal order,” said Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna who studies quantum information. But “if you don’t have a well-defined causal order,” he said — as is the case in experiments he has proposed — then “you don’t have space-time.”,,, Quantum correlations come first, space-time later. Exactly how does space-time emerge out of the quantum world? Bruner said he is still unsure. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
bornagain77_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

ChuckyD, on the thread from which the double slit experiments were referenced, stated,
Querius: "[M]ultiple direct experimental results have confirmed quantum behavior for over a hundred years." CD: "You are deliberately ignoring my point. The double slit experiment is easy to perform and replicate. High school kids can do it with proper supervision. A hundred+ years later, however, there is still no consensus (there’s that nasty word again) on how to interpret the experiment:"
Feynman stated that the double-slit experiment “…has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery” and that “nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description of it” [Feynman R, Leighton R, Sands M (1965) The Feynman Lectures on Physics].
Far be it for me to comment on Feynman, but I think his observation that all he could do is describe the phenomenon and not explain it illustrates my point….." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775137
To which I responded,
CD, you do realize that Feynman made that comment in 1965 do you not? If you would have watched the 2022 Nobel Prize Lectures I referenced, you would have realized that, since that time, much experimental progress has been made in quantum mechanics, and many materialistic ‘interpretations’ have been ruled out. For instance, virtually all, if not all, of the materialistic ‘interpretations’ that relied on hidden variables have been ruled out.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-775138
I went to point out how this falsification of hidden variables this NOT a minor problem for atheistic materialists, whereas it is very friendly to Judeo-Christian presuppositions. I even went on to note that Zeilinger himself, though not a Christian to my knowledge, finds quantum mechanics to be very friendly to a Judeo-Christian 'interpretation'.
49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969 Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” – Anton Zeilinger – Leading experimentalist in Quantum Physics? – (and along with Aspect and Clauser, won the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics) http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
In short, all in all the Christian, and Theist in general, is sitting very comfortably in regards to recent findings in quantum mechanics, whereas the atheistic materialist is not. And seeing as I find the atheist's nihilistic worldview to be a vile, and repulsive, worldview that robs man of any real meaning, beauty, and purpose, for his life, then I find it desirable to further shatter the Atheist's belief that quantum mechanics is somehow compatible with his worldview. First a little background. There was a heated argument between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, (who was a prominent philosopher in the early 1900s), over what the proper definition of time should be. Einstein bluntly stated, (to an audience of prominent philosophers that he was invited to speak to), that, “The time of the philosophers did not exist”. And in fact, that disagreement with those philosophers, and with Henri Bergson in particular, over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
Henri Bergson, as the preceding article pointed out, championed the primacy of ‘lived time’ over and above Einstein’s ‘spacetime’, Which is to say that Bergson championed ‘subjective experience’ over and above ‘objective reality’ in providing the proper definition of time. As the preceding article stated, the subjective experience of “duration”, was “a major part of his (Bergson’s) thesis on time”. In support of Bergson’s main thesis, and as Dr. Egnor has pointed out, “Duration, and/or “persistence of self identity”, is one of the main defining attributes of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Likewise, J. Warner Wallace also lists “Persistent self-identity through time”, i.e. ‘duration’, as a property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists.
Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
bornagain77_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

L&FP, 65: So, you think you understand the double slit experiment? (HT, Q & BA77) --> Physics TV!kairosfocus_{February 5, 2023
February
02
Feb
5
05
2023
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply