Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 02-12-2002, 05:31 PM

I cannot remember if I have raised this here before or not so anyway...

I did a small physics related unit a while back and in it we did a little on quantum mechanics (nothing mathematical).

One of the things that interested me was the Copenhagen interpretation, which has to do with an observation causing a wave function to collapse.

I was thinking about this and wrote a short piece to my lecturer regarding quantum cosmology.

Basically, the idea (which I found out is not original) was that if the universe as a whole was a quantum fluctuation then if the Copenhagen theory is correct it would have to have been observed in order to collapse.

Now, one of the interesting thing about a wave function is that it contains all the possible ways in which it could collapse. This means that in effect an electron is in many places at the same time (this has been experimentally confirmed by not observing the wave function directly - which of course causes it to collapse - but by measuring magnetic pulses. I am unclear on the details).

As far as the universe is concerned, I considered two possibilities.

The first one was that the universe did not contain intelligent life. I soon realised that if Copenhagen was correct, this was impossible and thus would not be one of the possibilities inherent in the universal wave function.

The second one was that the universe did contain intelligent life.

As the possibility for this exists in the wave function, it must act as if it had occurred thus creating the observation that causes the wave function to collapse...

Thus, the wave function collapsed into a universe with intelligent life - it had no other option.

This means that the time the wave function collapsed would be at the first moment it was possible that an intelligent being existed.

(I know I am not being clear here - it is difficult for me to articulate or remember my note to the lecturer).

Thus, the appearance of the universe being older than intelligent life will be incorrect.

Creationism?

Of course, my lecturer said that it was impossible at this stage to know for sure if the universe was a quantum event or if the Copenhagen interpretaion is true. He also said that the philosophical arguments against humanocentricism were compelling, although he did not articulate them.

Are there any comments on this?

GunnerJ · 02-12-2002, 07:08 PM

Intresting... Let's see if I got it. The Universe is a wave-form, and needs to colapse, and can only do so by being observed, and thus, intelegent life is needed to observe it, and therefore, those Universes that allow for intellegent life are the only ones possible... correct?

Francois Tremblay · 02-12-2002, 09:41 PM

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

tronvillain · 02-12-2002, 10:22 PM

As far as I know, an "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation is not something that has to be done by a conscious observer.

pug846 · 02-12-2002, 10:43 PM

We haven�t had a good discussion on Quantum Mechanics in a while.

Rimstalker said:

Quote:

Intresting... Let's see if I got it. The Universe is a wave-form, and needs to colapse, and can only do so by being observed, and thus, intelegent life is needed to observe it, and therefore, those Universes that allow for intellegent life are the only ones possible... correct?

The Universe is composed of �Quantum Stuff� and their wave function collapses upon observation.

The Copenhagen interpretation is just one of many that seek to describe the exact same Quantum facts. All of the theories are so damn strange because the Quantum facts are so damn strange. It�s all very interesting � Sadly, I don�t know shit about most of it and can�t really offer anything of substance to threads like these.

Franc said:

Quote:

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

Care to clarify?

Tron said:

Quote:

As far as I know, an "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation is not something that has to be done by a conscious observer.

Perhaps I remember wrong, but as far as I knew, it had to be a conscious observer. (Or, as far as we know by experimental data, it has to be a conscious observer). I probably just remember wrong and someone will correct me.

Francois Tremblay · 02-12-2002, 10:45 PM

If the universe needs to collapse to produce intelligent beings, and the universe needs intelligent beings to collapse, then nothing is going to happen.

I am also not sure how this hypothesis accounts for the expansion of the universe.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 01:43 PM

Franc,

No, this is incorrect.

Let us keep it simple and make the thing we are talking about the wave function of an electron.

Now, let us say there are 5 possible positions for that electron to be in.

Before the wave function collapses (ie, before the observation) it is as if the electron in those five places simultaneously.

This has been experimentally confirmed through indirect measurements of electromagnetic effects.

Applying this to the universe we can see that if one of the possible states for the universe to be in is with life then the universe will be in that state and the effect will be to collapse the wave function.

This will of course happen instantly.

This is only true if

1.) The Copenhagen interpretation is correct
2.) The universe is the result of a collapsing wave function.

With regard to a conscious observer being required, under Copenhagen it is not too well defined exactly what constitutes an observer or an observation.

However, experimentally it appears that wave functions only collapse when observed.

For example, they have done experiments with detectors set at different places detecting for waves or particles (you can only detect one or the other) and had the results put into storage without anyone looking at them.

Then they have rolled a dice to see which one they would look at first.

Whichever one they looked at first had meaningful information on it. The other one always was noise.

This implies that it is the conscious observer that collapses the wave function and not simply the inanimate detectors.

Corwin · 02-13-2002, 01:56 PM

Here's another thought.... *giggles* Wrap your brain around this one....

Observation does not have to be direct.

So.... the universe formed as a result of intelligent beings (us) observing the physical evidence of its creation (reality as we understand it, which contains evidence that it was created at some point by some action.)

It sounds odd, I know.... and would seem to make no sense. Until you factor in the concept that time is not, in fact, linear. (There is evidence to suggest this.... nothing conclusive, but suggestive...) So... if time is not linear, then observation of an event in the 'present' or 'future' is sufficient to cause that event to occur in the 'past.'

Does anybody else feel a sudden strong urge for a good stiff drink?

tronvillain · 02-13-2002, 02:09 PM

David Gould:

Quote:

For example, they have done experiments with detectors set at different places detecting for waves or particles (you can only detect one or the other) and had the results put into storage without anyone looking at them.

Then they have rolled a dice to see which one they would look at first.

Whichever one they looked at first had meaningful information on it. The other one always was noise.

Where did you hear about this experiment? I'm having trouble substantiating it.

David Gould · 02-13-2002, 02:33 PM

It was talked about by Paul Davies in 'The Ghost in the Atom' I think. It was done in Adelaide at the universty where he worked. I do not have a copy of the book on me but it was certainly Paul Davies (this was one of the books that we were required to read in the unit that I did).

I will try to get more info on it.

02-12-2002, 05:31 PM	#1
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Copenhagen Universe? I cannot remember if I have raised this here before or not so anyway... I did a small physics related unit a while back and in it we did a little on quantum mechanics (nothing mathematical). One of the things that interested me was the Copenhagen interpretation, which has to do with an observation causing a wave function to collapse. I was thinking about this and wrote a short piece to my lecturer regarding quantum cosmology. Basically, the idea (which I found out is not original) was that if the universe as a whole was a quantum fluctuation then if the Copenhagen theory is correct it would have to have been observed in order to collapse. Now, one of the interesting thing about a wave function is that it contains all the possible ways in which it could collapse. This means that in effect an electron is in many places at the same time (this has been experimentally confirmed by not observing the wave function directly - which of course causes it to collapse - but by measuring magnetic pulses. I am unclear on the details). As far as the universe is concerned, I considered two possibilities. The first one was that the universe did not contain intelligent life. I soon realised that if Copenhagen was correct, this was impossible and thus would not be one of the possibilities inherent in the universal wave function. The second one was that the universe did contain intelligent life. As the possibility for this exists in the wave function, it must act as if it had occurred thus creating the observation that causes the wave function to collapse... Thus, the wave function collapsed into a universe with intelligent life - it had no other option. This means that the time the wave function collapsed would be at the first moment it was possible that an intelligent being existed. (I know I am not being clear here - it is difficult for me to articulate or remember my note to the lecturer). Thus, the appearance of the universe being older than intelligent life will be incorrect. Creationism? Of course, my lecturer said that it was impossible at this stage to know for sure if the universe was a quantum event or if the Copenhagen interpretaion is true. He also said that the philosophical arguments against humanocentricism were compelling, although he did not articulate them. Are there any comments on this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2002, 07:08 PM	#2
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Intresting... Let's see if I got it. The Universe is a wave-form, and needs to colapse, and can only do so by being observed, and thus, intelegent life is needed to observe it, and therefore, those Universes that allow for intellegent life are the only ones possible... correct?

02-12-2002, 09:41 PM	#3
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

02-12-2002, 10:22 PM	#4
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	As far as I know, an "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation is not something that has to be done by a conscious observer.

02-12-2002, 10:45 PM	#6
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	If the universe needs to collapse to produce intelligent beings, and the universe needs intelligent beings to collapse, then nothing is going to happen. I am also not sure how this hypothesis accounts for the expansion of the universe.

02-13-2002, 01:43 PM	#7
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Franc, No, this is incorrect. Let us keep it simple and make the thing we are talking about the wave function of an electron. Now, let us say there are 5 possible positions for that electron to be in. Before the wave function collapses (ie, before the observation) it is as if the electron in those five places simultaneously. This has been experimentally confirmed through indirect measurements of electromagnetic effects. Applying this to the universe we can see that if one of the possible states for the universe to be in is with life then the universe will be in that state and the effect will be to collapse the wave function. This will of course happen instantly. This is only true if 1.) The Copenhagen interpretation is correct 2.) The universe is the result of a collapsing wave function. With regard to a conscious observer being required, under Copenhagen it is not too well defined exactly what constitutes an observer or an observation. However, experimentally it appears that wave functions only collapse when observed. For example, they have done experiments with detectors set at different places detecting for waves or particles (you can only detect one or the other) and had the results put into storage without anyone looking at them. Then they have rolled a dice to see which one they would look at first. Whichever one they looked at first had meaningful information on it. The other one always was noise. This implies that it is the conscious observer that collapses the wave function and not simply the inanimate detectors.

02-13-2002, 01:56 PM	#8
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Here's another thought.... giggles Wrap your brain around this one.... Observation does not have to be direct. So.... the universe formed as a result of intelligent beings (us) observing the physical evidence of its creation (reality as we understand it, which contains evidence that it was created at some point by some action.) It sounds odd, I know.... and would seem to make no sense. Until you factor in the concept that time is not, in fact, linear. (There is evidence to suggest this.... nothing conclusive, but suggestive...) So... if time is not linear, then observation of an event in the 'present' or 'future' is sufficient to cause that event to occur in the 'past.' Does anybody else feel a sudden strong urge for a good stiff drink?

02-13-2002, 02:33 PM	#10
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	It was talked about by Paul Davies in 'The Ghost in the Atom' I think. It was done in Adelaide at the universty where he worked. I do not have a copy of the book on me but it was certainly Paul Davies (this was one of the books that we were required to read in the unit that I did). I will try to get more info on it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.