The Two-Slit Experiment

[Leon1]

Actualy I do have a comment on the wave collapse due to observation.

I am currenly reading 'High Strangeness' and after my last post went back for a read. I happened to be on this page a couple pages later and Ding!

Synchronisity(sp), gotta love it. :)

I will type out a quote if that is okay.

Now, to put this in perspective, let me repeat again: Organic life on Earth serves as a "transmitter station".
As such a transmitter, during times of Transition, as it is in the case of the quantum wave collapse, what is being "transmitted/observed" determines the "measurement".
There are approximately six billion human beings on the planet at this moment of transition, most of them contributing to the quantitive transmission.
But what is missing is the qualitative frequency response vibration that will create the template for the new world.

I have not read past this paragraph so as not to muddy my thinking or alter it as yet. For better or worse, I want my initial thought process to lead me further before reading further for now.

This to me relates to the subject at hand in this thread.

My thoughts go like this:
If we six Billion or a proportion of us can alter our vibration, then we counteract the other proportion of the population.

This in terms of consciousness, and the effect this has on the collapse of the wave.

Like our experiment above. If most or all of the people are asleep, then they are not observers in the event, therefore the experiment goes one way, if everyone/critical number is asleep the outcome is dictated/controlled negatively. If on the other and a large enough proprtion are observing then it goes the other way positively. Now I have read the wave series through once, parts twice, I have visited the site for a number of years and grocked what was meant or thought I did. But, it is one thing to think one knows, and another to know we know.

I always thought I knew what was involved but one does need to SEE what is involved. This connection between what is written and what is discerned through that knowledge has got to be a dynamic process, ie the active principle over the passive one, I have always understood that from when I was reading Casteneda quite a number of years ago and the exercises I did in dream/attention states back then, but it never ceases to amaze me that sometime the simple things under our/my nose/s can still make greater connections with further knowledge.

What this brief conversation we have had here in this thread has done is help cement in place a concept that I thought I understood, more solidly in place.

Thanks,

I hope I have been clear enough, and I hope Laura you do not mind me quoting from the book.

Leon

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Woodsman]
The "observer" is a catch-all word indicating a conscious participant on the receiving end of the detection equipment used in the experiment.[/quote]

So the observer is ambiguously defined and used as a 'catch-all' phrase? In a scientific experiment? Maybe that's why the YCYOR crowd, the Greg Braden (God Code) crowd and "The Secret" followers use these experiments as the so-called 'scientific' basis of their doings?

I feel like, since these slit and double-slit experiments carry so much weight and influence so much thinking, the meanings of the terminology used is correspondingly more important.

As it stands, I don't see where the 'human looker' is distinguished from the observation/measurement system part of the experiment. To me this is critical to avoid falling into the YCYOR trap. I have been thinking that the term "observer" should be understood as referring to the "human looker" only, or that the 'observer' should be at least contextually defined precisely in order to eliminate any ambiguity. This is a 'scientific' experiment we're talking about as far as I know. So that's all I'm saying.

First, with regard to the wave pattern of electrons, the wacky part of the observer idea is that it is the experimenter looking at the experiment that somehow forces the wave to make a choice. Until then, everything is all just fuzzy, interacting waves sitting on top of each other in some strange, unknowable space. Gee! Aren't we important!

The math involved does not, in and of itself, mean anything either. But the interpretation of the math does matter! The interpretation about observation being what matters is called the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is the one usually taken as "true".

Another popular one is called the Many Worlds Interpretation, and says that the electron doesn't choose a place to hit the phosphor at all. Instead, the universe somehow duplicates itself into as many copies as there are possible positions for the electron to hit the phosphor of the detector, so every possible outcome actually happens. That one sounds cute, like watching an episode of "Sliders", where the characters have adventures moving between different parallel universes. Seems excessive and there is no evidence to confirm it.

Anyway, that's not what was mainly concerning me, although if we analyzed the actual experiment more, we should probably have to discuss the entire picture of QM just to connect all the dots.

So the thoughts I have on the observer issue:

What collapses the wave function? The interaction between that which is being observed and the instrument of observation. Interaction between 'objects' on the same level.

The human observer is on a meta-level relative to the 'objects involved in the experiment'. IOW, the entire experiment is on one level, while the human observer is on a different level. The human observer's actual role is to influence the possible outcomes by actually setting up, or arranging, the components of the experiment.

If there is an observer that does the interacting that collapses the wave function', it is the 'observation system' part of the experiment, not the individual person observer who is looking at the experiment. The human observer is just a 'reader' of what has happened (wave-reading consciousness unit?).

As I see it, the real question should always have been: if the subject doesn’t place the object and instrument of measurement in interaction with each other, does the wave-function collapse?

And it appears that any confusion has always been in the mind rather than in the reality; i.e., the divisions of reality at the quantum level into subject/object. Divisions which are mostly arbitrary - (due to the difficulty of sharply separating one thing from another on this level) and perceived through our neuro-linguistic structures rather than experienced directly. Just because We can sharply distinguish and define things linguistically, doesn't necessarily mean we are clearly 'defining reality' - especially on the quantum level.

As an aside, I was actually thinking that David George might have cleared this up since he mentioned 'morality' in the context of Quantum Mechanics in his first post. Leading me to think he might be familiar with J. S. Bell's "The Moral Aspect of Quantum Mechanics" where this 'observer' issue is also covered.


If the above doesn't sufficiently clarify, then the issue can be put another way.

Here's Davide Bondoni talking about it and including an excerpt from Bell, himself:

THE PROBLEM OF THE OBSERVER IN PHYSICS
DAVIDE BONDONI, 4 Jun 2010

Abstract.
In this short paper I present a new approach to the problem of measurement, based on the difference between language (reality) and meta-language (meta-reality). This way, it will be shown as the measurement is a meta-sentence on a real event. It is no longer necessary to split up the world into subject and object with a shifty boundary, but starting with an holistic event (the phenomenon) in which everything is entangled and make meta-assertion on this. This possible way out stops von Neumann's chain and explains the real meaning of the concept of measurement.


In the words of J.S. Bell in The Moral Aspect of Quantum Mechanics:

This splitting of the universe into two parts, subject and object, is dangerous in both the above cases. Consider the universe as a Denkbereich which we split into two complementary sets: S (the subject) and ¬S = O (the object). Given that this splitting is purely arbitrary, using von Neumann’s worlds, beliebig, we can decide to put S = ; or ¬S = ;. In the first case, we remain without subject (as essentially distinct from the object), in the second case we have no object. But, without observer how can the wave-function collapse? Perhaps we must question this way of splitting and adopt another point of view.

3. The Measurement
One other problem to face is the following: as the observer collapses the wave-function, deciding the fate of the cat, another observer may observe this observation producing another result, and it could be another observer again who observes the second observer producing a third result, and so on to infinity. So, the crucial question is:

Where in space-time does the wave-function collapse?

We begin to wrestle with this conundrum, distinguishing the interaction between the observable and the system of observation on one side and the observer on the other. I.e. we have an event composed of three parts: an observer (subject), an object and an instrument of observation. Object and instrument of measurement can be regarded as two systems interacting with each other. So we have on one side this interaction and on the other side the observer. The interaction between observable and instrument of observation happens one and only one time and it is this interaction that collapses the wave-function. The observer can at most read the result of this interaction, calling it a measurement, but when he intervenes, the wave-function is yet collapsed and the interaction between the two systems is lost.

Ignoring for a moment the presumptive reality of the interaction, Masanao Ozawa proved that in no case does the reading of measurement coincide with the interaction between the observable and the system of observation, because they happen in two distinct times, and because the reading of the measurement can occur only after the interaction.

The orthodox view [of the wave-collapse] confuses the time at which the outcome of measurement is obtained and the time at which the object is left in the state determined by the outcome. (. . . ) it confuses the time just after the reading of the outcome and the time just after the interaction between the object and the apparatus.

I cannot separate sharply one thing from another.
...
It is only a pure matter of convenience to focus on this subevent, instead of another. In this way, we avoid splitting the world into two contiguous parts, subject and object, considering as apriori, a primitive fact, the experiment, the model, the event, which gives values to any component of it. The division is not between two sections of the real, but between the language and the meta-language.

The observer is in a meta-level in relation to the interaction object/instrument of measurement. We cannot put subject and object on the same level. [The experiment] belongs to a level, while the observer to a meta-level.

However, a problem may arise here. How can the observer collapse the wave-function if it is on another level? Obviously, the observer cannot influence the cat directly.

Does it mean that the role of observer is insignificant? No. It is only the observer who may arrange an experiment in one way or in another, and doing so he influences the possible outcomes of the experiment. The experiment is the apriori of any measurement. It makes sense to speak of a measurement only within the context of a precise experiment and this is built up from the subject.
...
It is true that the collapse occurs in the interaction between object and instrument of measurement, but if the subject doesn’t place the object and instrument of measurement in interaction with each other, does the wave-function collapse?

The full 9 page pdf is here:
_http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.0187v2.pdf

From my perspective and with regard to the actual slit experiments, the two cause-effect directions are involved as Feynman hints at although there's no proof of this yet. This also explains why the squared number is called the probability amplitude and is that which accurately predicts the likelihood of finding an electron or not at any particular place. As far as I know, no-one has ever been able to suggest any reason why we have to do this - we just have to if we want the sums to work out right, as Feynman said.

But this two directions concept is not much different from "meditation with seed" as contrasted with regular meditation. As with the slit experiments and that dang cat of Schrodinger's, it is not that the mysterious entities we are studying actually change their natures if we open the box containing the results after the interaction, but before the readout (as in the delayed choice experiments). In this model, what happens is that when we set ourselves up to get a certain result, it sets up a channel for an appropriate behavior coming the other way.

At least this is what makes sense to me and I have found nothing more persuasive as yet. :)

 

[David George]

Bud wrote,

"In this model, what happens is that when we set ourselves up to get a certain result, it sets up a channel for an appropriate behavior coming the other way."

I agree as far as I understand: if we set up slit detectors to find out which slit the "photon" or electron goes through, we will find that out. It will also destroy the possibility of interference. If we leave the slits alone and look for wave interference, we will find wave interference! The experiment is our choice, like choosing to watch a movie or listen to music. (If we choose to watch a movie, we will see a movie; if we choose to listen to music, we will hear music.) But we do not, by looking at a readout, make the "wave function" collapse; the slit detector does that (in my opinion).

Here is a thought: When we see with two eyes, we have 3-D vision. That is, we reproduce in our heads 3 dimensional space! We must do that by superimposing two images in our heads: wave interference! So are we naturally manipulating waves in our heads? That means we operate by a principle that QM would consider "indeterminacy". Then can it be denied that all natural systems operate similarly? And all the systems now operating in the universe, having all interacted (or all being the products of a single action) in the evolution of the universe, are indeed entangled.

 

[Woodsman]

First of all, thank-you Bud!

I really appreciate having a mind like yours bounce thoughts back at me from time to time. It helps.

[quote author=Woodsman]
The "observer" is a catch-all word indicating a conscious participant on the receiving end of the detection equipment used in the experiment.

So the observer is ambiguously defined and used as a 'catch-all' phrase? In a scientific experiment? Maybe that's why the YCYOR crowd, the Greg Braden (God Code) crowd and "The Secret" followers use these experiments as the so-called 'scientific' basis of their doings?

I feel like, since these slit and double-slit experiments carry so much weight and influence so much thinking, the meanings of the terminology used is correspondingly more important.

As it stands, I don't see where the 'human looker' is distinguished from the observation/measurement system part of the experiment. To me this is critical to avoid falling into the YCYOR trap. I have been thinking that the term "observer" should be understood as referring to the "human looker" only, or that the 'observer' should be at least contextually defined precisely in order to eliminate any ambiguity. This is a 'scientific' experiment we're talking about as far as I know. So that's all I'm saying.

[/quote]

That's fair enough, though I would note that it may be a little hasty to judge the science itself based on my own limited understanding of it. I used the term 'catch-all' in an effort to gather together and explain my own varied understandings of what is meant by "The Observer". I would not be surprised if the people who work on these experiments directly cringed at my awkward attempts to define their intentions, understandings and efforts.

First, with regard to the wave pattern of electrons, the wacky part of the observer idea is that it is the experimenter looking at the experiment that somehow forces the wave to make a choice. Until then, everything is all just fuzzy, interacting waves sitting on top of each other in some strange, unknowable space. Gee! Aren't we important!

Point taken. Ego does appear to be an issue in this. I also found from the tract you offered, Davide Bondoni's example of infinite regression of multiple observers, to be a compelling complication. I don't know what to say to that except that except that "the Observer" is clearly a more complicated issue than one might naively suppose!

But it must also be remembered that one cannot be removed from the equation either, so importance is relative. The C's have said that all of reality can be created and destroyed by the individual. (I'm paraphrasing).

The math involved does not, in and of itself, mean anything either. But the interpretation of the math does matter! The interpretation about observation being what matters is called the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is the one usually taken as "true".

Another popular one is called the Many Worlds Interpretation, and says that the electron doesn't choose a place to hit the phosphor at all. Instead, the universe somehow duplicates itself into as many copies as there are possible positions for the electron to hit the phosphor of the detector, so every possible outcome actually happens. That one sounds cute, like watching an episode of "Sliders", where the characters have adventures moving between different parallel universes. Seems excessive and there is no evidence to confirm it.

Anyway, that's not what was mainly concerning me, although if we analyzed the actual experiment more, we should probably have to discuss the entire picture of QM just to connect all the dots.

So the thoughts I have on the observer issue:

What collapses the wave function? The interaction between that which is being observed and the instrument of observation. Interaction between 'objects' on the same level.

The human observer is on a meta-level relative to the 'objects involved in the experiment'. IOW, the entire experiment is on one level, while the human observer is on a different level. The human observer's actual role is to influence the possible outcomes by actually setting up, or arranging, the components of the experiment.

If there is an observer that does the interacting that collapses the wave function', it is the 'observation system' part of the experiment, not the individual person observer who is looking at the experiment. The human observer is just a 'reader' of what has happened (wave-reading consciousness unit?).

As I see it, the real question should always have been: if the subject doesn’t place the object and instrument of measurement in interaction with each other, does the wave-function collapse?

And it appears that any confusion has always been in the mind rather than in the reality; i.e., the divisions of reality at the quantum level into subject/object. Divisions which are mostly arbitrary - (due to the difficulty of sharply separating one thing from another on this level) and perceived through our neuro-linguistic structures rather than experienced directly. Just because We can sharply distinguish and define things linguistically, doesn't necessarily mean we are clearly 'defining reality' - especially on the quantum level.

As an aside, I was actually thinking that David George might have cleared this up since he mentioned 'morality' in the context of Quantum Mechanics in his first post. Leading me to think he might be familiar with J. S. Bell's "The Moral Aspect of Quantum Mechanics" where this 'observer' issue is also covered.

[...]

From my perspective and with regard to the actual slit experiments, the two cause-effect directions are involved as Feynman hints at although there's no proof of this yet. This also explains why the squared number is called the probability amplitude and is that which accurately predicts the likelihood of finding an electron or not at any particular place. As far as I know, no-one has ever been able to suggest any reason why we have to do this - we just have to if we want the sums to work out right, as Feynman said.

But this two directions concept is not much different from "meditation with seed" as contrasted with regular meditation. As with the slit experiments and that dang cat of Schrodinger's, it is not that the mysterious entities we are studying actually change their natures if we open the box containing the results after the interaction, but before the readout (as in the delayed choice experiments). In this model, what happens is that when we set ourselves up to get a certain result, it sets up a channel for an appropriate behavior coming the other way.

At least this is what makes sense to me and I have found nothing more persuasive as yet. :)

Okay. I get where you're coming from. :)



As I understand things, there appear to be two distinct ways of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

Here's the big, bad truth upon which Quantum Mechanics is based. . .

On the Quantum level, measurement changes the subject being observed, which means you cannot ever know its true state.

And here are the two understandings people seem to take away from that statement. . .

1. Observation of a particle requires a mechanical interaction with that same particle in order to know where it is and what it is doing. However, mechanical interaction also affects the state of the particle you're trying to measure. i.e., If you're in a pitch black room so that you can't see, you can bounce a ping pong ball off another ping pong ball in order to learn where the second ball is. Problem is, by doing this, you automatically change the position of the second ball because it gets bumped away from where it was. This fact, that measurement requires mechanical interaction with the subject, is a fundamental physical truth upon which is based the first understanding, "Observation changes the subject being observed." This truth requires no *magic* to exist because it works according to the well-understood laws of cause and effect. We can call this the, "Classical" approach.

And. . .

2. It is not just mechanical action which changes the subject under observation, but rather the fundamental act of consciously *knowing* which changes the behavior of the particle. We might call this the "Magical" approach. (I know it is also called by other names, but I want to be deliberately blunt here.)


These two approaches are related. That is, according to the Classical approach, to know, means to measure, and measuring means to change the behavior of the particle, which means from that perspective, knowing really does have an impact on the subject. Thus both understandings are technically correct. However, the second understanding, if it is taken by itself, implies a kind of *magic*.

And that's where people get hung up.

It has been offered that the whole impulse to see magic in Quantum Theory is the result of a misunderstanding in the wording. And I would have agreed at one time; Intuitively, it would appear that the first view, the Classical approach, is indeed the one which makes sense.

Except here's the problem. . .

The results of the Double Slit Experiment don't agree with intuition. The Delayed Choice version of the double slit experiment especially appears to support a Magical view.

The Magical view allows that entangled particles can respond to changes in each other through, "Spooky Action at a Distance". It also lines up with the fact that the C's (who communicate via *magic*) have said numerous things which would indicate that aspects of the second view are accurate, including, faster-than-light travel being possible, that time does not exist, that consciousness is the key aspect which is ignored in physics.

Of course, when I say, *magic*, I don't mean a force which cannot be explained or be mathematically understood or which does not consistently obey rules of matter and energy, cause and effect. Rather I am saying that those rules are not yet understood or recognized by publicly available orthodox science. It was Arthur C. Clarke who made the famous observation, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


So let's go back to the very first experiment. . .

It shows that light behaves both like a particle and a wave at the same time. Even sent through singly, one at a time with nothing to interfere with, the resulting image on the film over time is that of a wave pattern.

This should not be possible according to classical physics. So already, at this very first step, we are in the land of Magic.

Now, others have tried to explain in one way or another that really, the classical model of physics DOES explain this behavior, that nothing odd is happening. But this doesn't track for me. I either cannot understand what they are talking about, or their thought patterns appear disjointed and confused. And I tend to put stock in the reactions of Einstein and Feynman and others who were surprised by the results of the Double Slit experiment and who spent a lot of energy trying to unravel the mystery it presented.


Now here's the thing. . .

I really don't know which way to go on this question. I don't know enough, and some of the problems I would need solved first include. . .

--It is really hard to pump out individual photons and electrons one at a time to supply the Double Slit experiment. I don't know if people really do this or how they justify what they do instead as being good enough for valid experimental results.

--It is really hard to count individual photons and electrons without affecting their behavior in a mechanical way. I'm not sure it is possible, and I've been unable to find any literature explaining in a way I can understand the process by which it is done.

--The practical experiments which have been performed are hard for me to understand when I read the white papers because the math is far above me and I have trouble comprehending certain raw aspects of what the experimental set-ups are supposed to prove.

--Ark and other scientists whose opinions I respect appear to have strong reservations which I have to take into account, but which at the same time, I cannot fully understand.



Part of the overall complication is that it seems to me that people on either side of the problem seem to accept some aspects while not others, even though those aspects appear to be co-dependent on one another. --I say that hesitantly, though, exactly because I have difficulty cutting through my own fog in trying to understand this whole thing.

But I'm getting closer. Each time I look at this puzzle, I work out a little bit more. (I finally worked out what beam splitting half-silvered mirrors work to demonstrate.)

Until then. . , all my conclusions will be preceded with big, "IF" statements. Because, dang it all, I'm confused.

 

[John G]

Another popular one is called the Many Worlds Interpretation, and says that the electron doesn't choose a place to hit the phosphor at all. Instead, the universe somehow duplicates itself into as many copies as there are possible positions for the electron to hit the phosphor of the detector, so every possible outcome actually happens. That one sounds cute, like watching an episode of "Sliders", where the characters have adventures moving between different parallel universes. Seems excessive and there is no evidence to confirm it.

Well many worlds are nice cause they kind of take Feynman paths literally and there is this:


From 102304:

Q: (A) I have been thinking about what you once said about modeling consciousness in equations. You suggested inverting geometric representation of gravity. My idea is to start with complex space and complex time...

A: That is close enough to get you started. But you will find that it may be more simple than that.

Q: (A) If I only use complex time, as Igor and Grichka propose?

A: Not that simple!

Q: (A) Complex space only?

A: That is closer.

Q: (A) But then how would time travel be possible if no complex time?

A: Many worlds, so to say.

 

[David George]

Woodsman wrote,

"So let's go back to the very first experiment. . .

"It shows that light behaves both like a particle and a wave at the same time. Even sent through singly, one at a time with nothing to interfere with, the resulting image on the film over time is that of a wave pattern."

I'm not sure which experiment you are talking about Woodsman, but I don't think any physicist would say that light behaves both like a particle and a wave at the same time. I believe that light is emitted from an electron at a specific wavelength according to the orbital of the electron. It is a wave, but the wave is said to be a "packet" because it appears to gather waves of similar length together, leaving no "intermediate" waves. An electron's orbitals are discrete: if one orbital is at a radius of 1, the next orbital will be at a radius such that the difference between the two orbitals is the wavelength of the emitted/absorbed light. That is a specific wavelength. A wave of that length (or frequency) will cause the electron to jump the gap between orbitals.

So there is a gap between the wavelengths of light that can be absorbed and emitted by any atom or molecule, and the gap depends on the structure of the particular atom or molecule. All light is not absorbed, because all structures are not identical. Light that is not absorbed scatters off walls, etc. and becomes less energetic, resulting in many wavelengths unconnected with the source electron(s). So a room with a light source becomes filled with all kinds of wavelengths of light. However, that light can only be absorbed by an electron in a specific wavelength, in the same way it is emitted. In the Feynman experiment with "photons", he found that a maximum of "four percent of the time", a backstop detector clicks, meaning that four percent of the time an electron in the detector has absorbed a "wave packet" of the required frequency and "jumped the gap". That electron then re-emits a photon; that photon prompts a cascade of photons in a photomultiplier tube, and the detector clicks.

The maximum four percent "click rate" is due to constructive wave interference. A wave passes through both slits, interferes constructively, and doubles the click rate. Without interference, the click rate drops to two percent of the time.

Feynman treats a detector click as a "photon".

So there is no "photon" emitted "one at a time" in that experiment, nor does a "photon" act as a wave and a particle at the same time. It depends on what you are looking for!

In the electron experiment, electrons are emitted "one at a time" because they are unique material bodies. And when an electron is accelerated it radiates light. The electron can go through only one slit, but an interference pattern will build up (even a small number of impacts in spatially separated but identical setups, when collected together will show an interference pattern) because (I believe) the electron's path is influenced by the interference of the light it emits. But when a detector is present, the interference is destroyed, just as in the "photon" experiment.

It may help to think of a "photon" as a "wave packet", which is treated "as if" it were a particle. But it is not a particle. An electron is a particle; but the pattern of successive impacts builds up so it appears similar to a wave interference pattern.

 

[Buddy]

I also found from the tract you offered, Davide Bondoni's example of infinite regression of multiple observers, to be a compelling complication. I don't know what to say to that except that except that "the Observer" is clearly a more complicated issue than one might naively suppose!

Or maybe simpler?

There is a parallel to this 'looker' in another field, assuming you're familiar with the 'observer' in sociology. All he does is look too.

The QM experiments demonstrate that it is the "same-level interaction" that collapses the wave function in the experimental set up. The human looker, by mere looking, accomplishes nothing. The YCYOR crowd also demonstrates this (their experiment is in their heads) because every time they try to implement wave collapsing they just hit the wall. Being used to dizziness I suppose, they bounce back unfazed and remark "Gosh! We just need more people. C'mon y'all let's go...and hold hands! Yes, that's the ticket...let's hold hands and really, really concentrate!" :)

But it must also be remembered that one cannot be removed from the equation either, so importance is relative.

The importance of, and the actual role of, the human looker has been clearly demonstrated as far as I can tell.

The C's have said that all of reality can be created and destroyed by the individual. (I'm paraphrasing).

Of course, but is this in-context? The C's have also said not to diefy them. The point being that their communications are intended as non-freewill violating springboards - not authoritarian reference points intended to take the place of knowledge building.

As I understand things, there appear to be two distinct ways of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

I think there are more than two, because understanding doesn't take place in a vacuum. Did you catch what went unstated regarding the idea "when we set ourselves up to get a certain result, it sets up a channel for an appropriate behavior coming the other way?"

Can you see the QM components in the entire set up of the Cassiopaean experiment?

Do you know your own ontological grounding? Mine is that 'all possible relationships between everything in the universe exist by default unless something deliberately constrains one or more relationships'. This refers to everything from gravity (there is some slight gravity between your big toe and your nose, as well as between your foot and the moon, for example. Not to mention between photons, no matter how far apart they are).

With this as background and considering our current 3D level, we need not "know everything" in order to 'know something.' All we need to start is to know that there always is a background assumption set for every assertion/statement (otherwise how would we ever discern disinfo?) and have the right tools...like, my "Why? and What does that mean?" and Laura's "Sez who?", etc.

With a model of the universe that is self-consistent from the widest perspective to the ontological ground, one can easily keep their wide-scope contextual grounding, even while studying QM. Because these are not "2 separate worlds", as seen from my perspective anyway.

As an aside, back in October of last year, I made a post here that may (or may not) be interesting to readers of this thread. Robert Lanza wrote "Biocentrism" in which his bottom line is clearly: "reality begins and ends with the observer." Since Lanza brought up the famous Schrödinger's cat experiment, suggesting that "the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box and investigate", I asked a simple question:

Isn't Lanza assuming that just because there is not enough information for a particular observer to make a determination from his/her point of view, that there is actually reason to assume some "objective indeterminate state"?

If so, then why is that exactly?

...and then I offered that situation involving Marilyn vos Savant that clearly demonstrates that just because a person can't see something, doesn't mean there is nothing there to see.

In that same thread, I mentioned Neils Bohr's position on the 'observer' issue and offered:

[quote author=Bud]
Quite how the conscious beings could observe something that they have not yet created by observing it was never clear, nor was it clear just how conscious a creature had to be to have this remarkable faculty of creating reality.[/quote]

...and now I'm suggesting that J. S. Bell addressed that issue quite well. Bell was awesome! With his "Bell's Theorem" and "Bell curve", mankind has benefited tremendously, OSIT!

Here's the big, bad truth upon which Quantum Mechanics is based. . .

On the Quantum level, measurement changes the subject being observed, which means you cannot ever know its true state.

Agreed. Fortunately it's not necessary to know "its true state" to get useful stuff done. Global Positioning Satellites work, cell phones and DVD players work, the hypothesis that allowed the C's experimental setup to finally 'connect' with the future, worked.

Of course, when I say, *magic*, I don't mean a force which cannot be explained or be mathematically understood or which does not consistently obey rules of matter and energy, cause and effect. Rather I am saying that those rules are not yet understood or recognized by publicly available orthodox science. It was Arthur C. Clarke who made the famous observation, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I understand perfectly. My view of 'Magic', or spiritual perception of 'mysterious' happenings is not mysterious either. There is one reality. Everything that is happening on every level is happening right now and right under our noses. People are collapsing wave functions left and right by interacting with others and their environment (on the same level) - by participating in life!, whether they are doing EE or demonstrating on the streets or whatever! Did we have any idea a year or more ago, that Mubarak would have his career 'wave function' collapsed, sending him in the direction of 'retirement' so soon? :)

When you can see the patterns of events all around you and in general society, that old hermetic axiom "as above, so below" becomes as obvious as the nose on our faces, and no tunnel vision focus on QM math needed, in order to contextually understand anything, OSIT!


----------------------------------------
Some additional wording for clarity

 

[Woodsman]

Woodsman wrote,

"So let's go back to the very first experiment. . .

"It shows that light behaves both like a particle and a wave at the same time. Even sent through singly, one at a time with nothing to interfere with, the resulting image on the film over time is that of a wave pattern."

I'm not sure which experiment you are talking about Woodsman, but I don't think any physicist would say that light behaves both like a particle and a wave at the same time.

Sounds like an issue of word semantics because I hear where you're coming from, (which is totally awesome, btw. More on that lower down), but I have also *definitely* heard, over and over again from physicists, that wave/particle duality is THE central issue in the Double-Slit experiment; light exhibiting both wave and particle behavior at the same time.

I believe that light is emitted from an electron at a specific wavelength according to the orbital of the electron. It is a wave, but the wave is said to be a "packet" because it appears to gather waves of similar length together, leaving no "intermediate" waves. An electron's orbitals are discrete: if one orbital is at a radius of 1, the next orbital will be at a radius such that the difference between the two orbitals is the wavelength of the emitted/absorbed light. That is a specific wavelength. A wave of that length (or frequency) will cause the electron to jump the gap between orbitals.

So there is a gap between the wavelengths of light that can be absorbed and emitted by any atom or molecule, and the gap depends on the structure of the particular atom or molecule. All light is not absorbed, because all structures are not identical. Light that is not absorbed scatters off walls, etc. and becomes less energetic, resulting in many wavelengths unconnected with the source electron(s). So a room with a light source becomes filled with all kinds of wavelengths of light. However, that light can only be absorbed by an electron in a specific wavelength, in the same way it is emitted. In the Feynman experiment with "photons", he found that a maximum of "four percent of the time", a backstop detector clicks, meaning that four percent of the time an electron in the detector has absorbed a "wave packet" of the required frequency and "jumped the gap". That electron then re-emits a photon; that photon prompts a cascade of photons in a photomultiplier tube, and the detector clicks.

These notes about how detectors actually work are perhaps the most informative I've seen after a week or so of my trawling the web. Just saying.

The maximum four percent "click rate" is due to constructive wave interference. A wave passes through both slits, interferes constructively, and doubles the click rate. Without interference, the click rate drops to two percent of the time.

Feynman treats a detector click as a "photon".

So there is no "photon" emitted "one at a time" in that experiment, nor does a "photon" act as a wave and a particle at the same time. It depends on what you are looking for!

In the electron experiment, electrons are emitted "one at a time" because they are unique material bodies. And when an electron is accelerated it radiates light. The electron can go through only one slit, but an interference pattern will build up (even a small number of impacts in spatially separated but identical setups, when collected together will show an interference pattern) because (I believe) the electron's path is influenced by the interference of the light it emits. But when a detector is present, the interference is destroyed, just as in the "photon" experiment.

It may help to think of a "photon" as a "wave packet", which is treated "as if" it were a particle. But it is not a particle. An electron is a particle; but the pattern of successive impacts builds up so it appears similar to a wave interference pattern.

I think I am finally understanding the crux of what you are suggesting!!! Enough to actually ask specific questions! Thank-you

Here's what I understand from you, (please correct me if I am wrong): "The high points of the light wave are, due to constructive interference, energetic enough to (a percentage of the time) cause a 'point' to register on a film medium, (for instance), and that it is due to statistical probability that this happens more in some places than others. This statistical probability happens in obvious accordance with the dynamics of the light wave itself, and thus causes the build-up of a wave-like image of banding on the base detector. There are never any 'photons', just spots where the whole wave front happens to interact with the medium."

Okay. That actually makes sense!

(Side question: But why should one electron or silver halide be affected by the light wave when its neighbor is not? Why only 4% of the time? That's like saying only 4% of the pebbles on a beach will be made wet by a crashing ocean wave. Also, why should the wave front only interact with one pebble at a time? Wouldn't experimenters see instances where two or more points register simultaneously at different spots across the medium? Surely, a 4% 'hit' ratio would apply to every electron or halide on the detector medium and not just one electron or halide at a time out of millions. Am I missing something here? Because now it's sounding as though light is behaving particle-like again; "wave packets" moving on a vector rather than behaving like waves on a beach is very particle-like.)

But ignoring my side-question and assuming that light is NEVER a particle and there is NEVER a specific photon passing through one slit or the other, that light is ALWAYS passing through both slits equally and thus interfering. . .

Why then does measuring at the slits to see if there is one of these imaginary photons passing cause the interference pattern to break down? If the same treatment is happening at both slits, if light waves are still getting through to register on the film medium, then why would they stop interfering? Light energy is still passing, and if it is NEVER a particle and always a wave, then there should be no reason for it not to interfere even if it IS measured at the slit.

Also. . , if light is always a wave and never a particle, then why do experimenters see clicks at one slit or the other when counting photons and not both at the same time? Even if the detector only picks up a hit 4% of the time, it should still happen quite often. Every 25th time, in fact, (on average) should be a double-click, right?

What am I missing?

 

[David George]

Woodsman,

Those are interesting questions. As far as I understand this, it was Young, in the 19th century, who first showed that a light wave can be treated as following a path (in other words, acting like a particle). The first interference pattern on film was made in an English university (as I remember) around the beginning of the 20th century, by simply shining a very weak light (negligible light) through two slits over a long period (weeks). The recognition of particle-like behavior was by Einstein, who named the "photon". Light of the right frequency will knock an electron out of a solid (an electric current flows). This is the "photoelectric effect". And it is the frequency, not the amount, of light which carries the energy. Einstein took an concurrent theory, by Planck, in which Planck found that energy in a "blackbody radiator" must radiate at specific frequencies rather than any frequency, with a limit to the number of high-energy waves. This is because a high energy wave takes too much effort to assemble; light is more likely to assemble in smaller energy waves than in larger ones. So there is a statistical distribution of "energy waves" in a blackbody radiator. But no one knew why, until they decided it is due to the energy of the electron emitting or absorbing the light: the electron's orbital is "quantized", or discrete. The electron occupies specific orbitals around the nucleus. And so, when it jumps, it emits specific frequencies according to the atomic system it is in.

However, the "photon" idea is not necessary, according to David Bohm who wrote in the 1950's I think. He once again showed that light waves can be treated as following a path, just as Young did way back when (but I don't know any more than that).

I believe the reason for the specific location of a wave "impact", and its "singular" nature, is due to the structure of the wave. It has two components, at right angles to each other: an electric and a magnetic component. The way I think of it is as an "internal vector", or a two-motion wave. One part hits you at a certain angle, and the other hits you at a different angle. And every angle is different relative to any receiver in a different space. The most likely impact point is in a direct line from the source, but it is not necessarily at that point that any wave will hit so as to be absorbed (and knock out an electron). There is a statistical distribution.

With interference, the wave passing through two slits creating an interference pattern of constructive and destructive interference, depending on the distance between the slits and the wavelength of the light. If there are detectors at the slits, a wave that is absorbed by one detector must have exactly the right "shape" for that detector; and it cannot have exactly the right shape for a detector in a different location in space. So the wave at the distant detector passes through it and hits the backstop directly (approximately). That is how I see it.

The reason for the low number of clicks is also statistical, the same way as the "blackbody radiation". Only a small number of waves, compared with the total, have the right frequency to be absorbed (and cause a click).

 

[Buddy]

Another popular one is called the Many Worlds Interpretation, and says that the electron doesn't choose a place to hit the phosphor at all. Instead, the universe somehow duplicates itself into as many copies as there are possible positions for the electron to hit the phosphor of the detector, so every possible outcome actually happens. That one sounds cute, like watching an episode of "Sliders", where the characters have adventures moving between different parallel universes. Seems excessive and there is no evidence to confirm it.

Well many worlds are nice cause they kind of take Feynman paths literally

Yeah, I know of your preference for 'many worlds' and world-lines. Would you believe I thought about you when I wrote that? :)

Granted, it's a seductive theory and there is no shortage of people who subscribe to it, including the quantum mechanical computer theorists. It seems to do a nice job of explaining things while keeping all the explanations on a linear plane as well. Quite unintentional, I'm sure.

I'm just saying 'many worlds' isn't needed to explain anything. To me, as a hypotheses or general framework, the two directions of time (or cause-effect chains) explain more - including the symmetry of the math of the probability amplitude, as well as the Feynman diagrams, his path integrals, and in a more general way: the meditation with 'seed', and the C's experiment itself.

With this model, in the single-slit experiment there are two chains of cause and effect interfering with each other so that the true probability of an event happening (where an electron shows up exactly) must describe the probability of it happening in forwards time, and the reverse event happening (an electron leaving the phosphor at a given point and being absorbed by the gun) in backwards time.

It's the small scale of the quantum world where all events are completely efficient and reversible (isn't the jargon word: elastic?), that explains why the numerical value of both probabilities is the same. So to get the total probability which accurately predicts a specific event on our arrow, we just have to multiply the forwards probability by the same number for the backwards probability.

I know that scientists have already built basic quantum computers that can perform certain calculations, but quantum mechanical computers can also be explained without needing untold numbers of parallel universes. The computers don't start with a problem and move towards the answer by doing work, in the way that our day to day experience suggests it always has to be done. Instead, the correct answer (which is different to all the other possible answers because it is correct, and part of the future state where the researchers are celebrating!) decomposes, or reduces back into the inputs to the problem on the backwards arrow, in the same short period of time that we see the inputs turning into the answer on our arrow. It's the small size of the quantum computers which makes this process so obviously symmetrical. And it is just the conditioned habit of using only a focused, linear thinking mode that makes the concept seem silly or so hard to wrap the head around, or both, OSIT.

and there is this:

From 102304:

{snip}

A: Many worlds, so to say.

Geez, I'd a thought the fact that the C's say anything at all would be a point in my favor. ~sigh~ Oh well.
:D

 

[John G]

So to get the total probability which accurately predicts a specific event on our arrow, we just have to multiply the forwards probability by the same number for the backwards probability.

and that's not incompatible with many-worlds. I originally got into many worlds via Tony Smith and Smith also says: "The probability of any event of interaction is a transaction between an amplitude from the past, looking like one helix, corresponding to Yang, and an amplitude from the future, a mirror-image helix, corresponding to Yin." Many Worlds helps with avoiding time travel paradoxes. It's like many worlds are all the pre-existing roads of possibilities and the transactions determine the ones you travel on while others are travelling on the other roads.

 

[Buddy]

So to get the total probability which accurately predicts a specific event on our arrow, we just have to multiply the forwards probability by the same number for the backwards probability.

and that's not incompatible with many-worlds.

Yeah, I realized that, yet still wondered about people's preference for it. I could probably buy it if I could reconcile it with universal principles that deal with energy, like 'conservation of energy' and 'path of least resistance'. And then, if it were understood that the universe that actually manifests from our point of view is the one that 'happens' to contain the probability that actually materialized and that all other possible universes remain as potential, not actual. But then the theory wouldn't be 'many worlds', it would be a possible opening for the reversible time model, OSIT.

Many Worlds helps with avoiding time travel paradoxes.

We don't have time travel. Shouldn't 'having time travel' precede time travel paradoxes? Besides, if memory serves, historically, the many mysteries that mystics, occultists and ordinary people have alluded to involved, not time travel, but trans-location, or some kind of instantaneous movement from one geographical location to another separated by various distances. And sometimes being in two places simultaneously!

I originally got into many worlds via Tony Smith and Smith also says: "The probability of any event of interaction is a transaction between an amplitude from the past, looking like one helix, corresponding to Yang, and an amplitude from the future, a mirror-image helix, corresponding to Yin." It's like many worlds are all the pre-existing roads of possibilities and the transactions determine the ones you travel on while others are travelling on the other roads.

To me, it's only attractive as long as I don't consider certain other equivalencies. Namely that electrons being forced along a path in the matter field in the slit experiment is similar to electrons being forced along a path in the matter field of a light bulb filament. And what about all the other bulbs also burning and any other forced events involving electrons on the quantum level? In these seeming equivalent terms, doesn't a 'turned on' light bulb also generate uncountable quantum events every second within the constraints of the experimental set ups we call the 'power grid and the power company'? Is a complete parallel universe being created for every one of these quantum events? Is there an important difference I'm being unaware of?

I'm not being flippant. I genuinely would like to know how people tend to answer these kinds of questions.

With reversible time, there is 'only' the one awesome reality and the only things that need reducing on the backwards arrow is everything that is happening on the forward one, unless I'm missing something. And that is entirely possible. :)

 

[David George]

Bud and Bluelamp,

I have to say your discussion is difficult to follow. I don't understand it, but I wonder if you are talking about the "Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory" which is in Wikipedia. It seems to be the origin of Feynman's description of anti-matter as regular matter moving backward in time. In Wikipedia, "absorber theory" appears to be a mathematical solution to the "problem" of advanced and retarded waves from Maxwell, which in turn appear to be mathematical rather than physical. I don't understand any of the math, but the "absorber theory" seems to be important because it preserves time symmetry: it operates with time moving in either direction (future to past or past to future). And that has to do with conservation of energy, because it appears that energy conservation is associated with time symmetry. The modern field theories are all "symmetry" theories. (And "forces" appear through symmetry-breaking and transition to "ordered" phases.) The idea of the absorber theory is that an electron doesn't feel its own field, but responds to another electron. And when a photon moves between two electrons, the absorber theory makes it possible for either electron to be the emitter or the absorber. That is where the backward-time moving part comes in. An electron emits a photon (moving say past-to-future), but it can also be treated as absorbing an anti-photon (a photon moving future-to-past), etc.

I wonder if that is what you are talking about. If it is, I have a comment and a question on time symmetry. I find it is not possible to assign a future-past or past-future time direction to simple cause-effect sequences. Each way seems as good as the other. (Future-to-past time seems more natural than past-to-future in my mind, when confusing language is recognized. That is, cause "goes before", hence lies in the future relative to effect; effect "comes after", hence lies in the past relative to cause. But not much sense is lost if the time arrow is reversed.) It may be that this kind of time symmetry is more valid than a time reversal symmetry that, according to some sources, requires the whole universe to be time reversed - which doesn't make any sense to me. At any rate, in the modern theories it appears some symmetries are violated: some reactions take place more often than their reverse, which seems to put the whole "symmetry" program into question (and makes the time symmetry more crucial). Perhaps you could describe what you understand time reversal symmetry to be, and how you see the broader symmetry question.

Unless you are talking about something completely different, in which case I am totally confused and perhaps you could explain what you are talking about!

 

[Woodsman]

The C's have said that all of reality can be created and destroyed by the individual. (I'm paraphrasing).

Of course, but is this in-context? The C's have also said not to diefy them. The point being that their communications are intended as non-freewill violating springboards - not authoritarian reference points intended to take the place of knowledge building.

Agreed. But it would be pointless to not take this information stream into account when it offers clues. Neither you or I would be here otherwise.

That quote is here, (during the Frank years, though...)

From session 941124

Q: (L) And did they abduct anyone at that time?
A: No.
Q: (L) Why didn't they?
A: You stopped it.
Q: (L) How did I stop it?
A: Knowledge is rooted in awareness.
Q: (L) So, my awareness is what stopped it?
A: Close.
Q: (L) When I had the dream about doing battle with the dragon,
was that just a dream, an astral event, or an actual interaction with
the Lizzies?
A: All three.
Q: (L) And what was their reaction to encountering my resistance to
them?
A: Disappointment.
Q: (L) Have they tried to harass us since then?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Have they succeeded on any of those occasions subsequent
to that?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) In what way?
A: A***.
Q: (L) Through my mother?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Did they abduct her?
A: Garbled her emotions.
Q: (L) Is that their best shot so far?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can it get worse?
A: It can always get worse.
Q: (L) So we just have to stay on our toes at all times?
A: Absolutely don't let others distract you. You have suffered many
attempts at distraction away from truth. Now follow some
proclamations: Pause. All there is is lessons. This is one infinite
school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even
inanimate matter learns it is all an "Illusion." Each individual
possesses all of creation within their minds. Now, contemplate for a
moment. Each soul is all powerful and can create or destroy all
existence if know how. You and us and all others are interconnected
by our mutual possession of all there is. You may create alternative
universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a duplicate of the
universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists.
It is "fun" to see how much you can access.
Q: (L) It's fun for who to see how much we can access?
A: All. Challenges are fun. Where do you think the limit of your mind
is?
Q: (L) Where?
A: We asked you.
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no limit.
A: If there is no limit, then what is the difference between your own
mind and everything else?
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no difference if all is ultimately one.
A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they
are precisely the same thing.

I think something more can be taken from this quote, and from certain basic foundational beliefs I function with; that we are all connected, particularly on the subconscious layer. I think there is a LOT of communication going on all the time. I would be surprised if the Higher Bud and the Higher Woodsman are not chatting right now, trying to coax our 3D consciousness layers toward experiences which will teach something.

And so if all are one, then the infinite regression of observers problem as posed previously becomes a little more interesting and perhaps more easily solvable in one stroke?

I think there are more than two, because understanding doesn't take place in a vacuum. Did you catch what went unstated regarding the idea "when we set ourselves up to get a certain result, it sets up a channel for an appropriate behavior coming the other way?"

I saw that you had said this with some pregnant meaning, I'm afraid I don't grasp why exactly.

Can you see the QM components in the entire set up of the Cassiopaean experiment?

There are a number of ways this can be interpreted. Can you explain your meaning more exactly?

Do you know your own ontological grounding? Mine is that 'all possible relationships between everything in the universe exist by default unless something deliberately constrains one or more relationships'. This refers to everything from gravity (there is some slight gravity between your big toe and your nose, as well as between your foot and the moon, for example. Not to mention between photons, no matter how far apart they are).

I think this is an example of all paths being different, but all leading up the same mountain. (That's my impression, at any rate :)) But I think I'd have to be Bud and have gone through his specific mind-journey and done his specific work to reach that specific wording and definition set.

I understand perfectly. My view of 'Magic', or spiritual perception of 'mysterious' happenings is not mysterious either. There is one reality. Everything that is happening on every level is happening right now and right under our noses. People are collapsing wave functions left and right by interacting with others and their environment (on the same level) - by participating in life!, whether they are doing EE or demonstrating on the streets or whatever! Did we have any idea a year or more ago, that Mubarak would have his career 'wave function' collapsed, sending him in the direction of 'retirement' so soon? :)

So. . , (please correct me if I am wrong. I thought I understood before where you stood on the Double Slit experiment, but recently went back to read your posts again), there IS in your view a wave function collapse; probabilities exist, there is a wave of light traversing both slits, but then it does become a "particle" of light after measurement. This is different from David George's view that there is NEVER a particle of reality that light collapses into, but only ever a wave and we just have a mistaken understanding of what we are seeing on the lab bench. (If I am correct in understanding HIS view, and please forgive me, David George, if I am wrong.)

But, and here I think is your particular logical requirement, the wave will not collapse into a point without some manner of DOing on the part of the experimenter. In this case, the DOing is the act of placing detectors at the slits, and that this is a physical interaction, not just a passive looking on, and the wave function collapse itself is purely mechanical in nature.

The act of DOing is what collapses the function. DOing creates the reality and the ability to know that reality. --Or perhaps better put, DOing causes reality to respond and react accordingly.

Is that in line with your current working belief set?

This is fascinating! Everybody seems to have a subtle but critically different understanding of the Double Slit experiment. Who would have thought that shining a light through a cut piece of card board could cause such calamity!

Anyway, thank you very much for your comments, Bud! Very useful.

I'm still in that mode of "much swirling information", and no, I don't know if I have an ontological grounding which I might put forward as such, but I am certainly driven by a need to put everything I know in an order which does not result in conflicts with its own internal structures. The Double Slit is simply the latest shake-up. It's causing a Spring cleaning, if you will.

:)

 

[John G]

I could probably buy it if I could reconcile it with universal principles that deal with energy, like 'conservation of energy' and 'path of least resistance'.

Quantum physics is kind of more information conservation than energy and via Feynman paths, many worlds get this naturally.

We don't have time travel. Shouldn't 'having time travel' precede time travel paradoxes?

Well from an information point of view, just communicating with the Cs is time travel and 4D STS going back in time to redo our 3D history would be time travel too.

Is a complete parallel universe being created for every one of these quantum events?

Yes. From 970104:

(L) Is it that any and all possibilities and will and do take place?
A: Closer.

A: Because of already given data, that is elementary my dear, Martin, elementary!
Q: (L) I am NOT Martin anymore! So there!
A: You are in an alternate reality.
Q: (L) Oh, God! I don't even want to THINK about that! That's horrible! Does this mean that when you gave me the
word "NEW," you perhaps meant a new universe? A new reality?