lpetrich

I like seeing appreciation for my efforts. I have not spent much effort researching the wavefunction-collapse question, though I do understand what the problem is.

This action-at-a-distance quality of wavefunction collapse extends to multiple wavefunction collapses, as in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments.

A two-photon decay where the photons have a combined spin of 0 will have the photons' wavefunctions combined in this way

1/sqrt(2)*(|+>|-> - |->|+> )

where |+> and |-> are the +1 and -1 helicity states (spin along direction of motion; right and left circular polarization).

This means that their spins will be anticorrelated, something that can be detected by placing polarizers in front of the detectors. This suggests some kind of action at a distance or something equally weird; however, each detector does not see anything that will enable one to predict how the other detector's polarizer is placed.

Such experiments also put strong constraints on hidden-variables theories; these tend to predict less anticorrelation (Bell's Inequality). But I'm not very familiar with this subject.

But I do think that one can confidently rule out mystic-physics interpretations.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Theli

He tends to use quantum physics as a proof of god.
But I wonder, doesn't he kill god in doing so?

I read about this experiment.
<a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html" target="_blank">What is QP?</a>

And it seems that if the electron is being observed it chooses a definite path, and acts like a particle.
But if the particle goes unobserved it takes all likely paths at the same time, showing the same result as the wave did.
If the particle is being observed, then that is reffered to as "The Collapse of the Wave Function".

I hope I got that right.

But here is a problem. If god existed and was observing 'everything' (being omniscient) then the electron would always act as a particle, right?
If something would go unobserved anywhere, then god doesn't exist, or he isn't omniscient.

Koyaanisqatsi

Very nice, Theli! God's omnipresence automatically means that all wave-functions (and all possible wave-functions) have indeed been pre collapsed, which in turn would mean the universe is a solid, immovable block of matter, eternally stagnant!

I like that.

Eudaimonist

Do you cease to exist when I go to sleep at night? Let me know.

Longhorn

Just to clear up few things...

Did you mean to say all paths are equally likely and electron takes *only* one of them? Otherwise, it's not possible for an electron to take all the paths simultaneously, right?

What is a good example of an electron not acting as a particle?

One more, can the observer be a non-being, for example a space probe? When a space probe collects data from a planet, does it collapse the wave-function of the nearby quantum particles too?

Theli

I think you are missing a point here... or I'm missing a point.
Anyway, a point is missing.

The way I understood it is that the path of the electron is not set unless it is being observed. Wich means that the electron takes all possible paths simultainesly, and because of that interfering with itself. Acting as a wave, emitting from the source (omnidirectional).

I don't really have full info on this, and to be truthfull it seems there are no full info on it. No theory existing today can explain it correctly.

Mr. Goswami makes a great error in assuming that our entire reality is a subject under the Collapse of the Wave Function, assuming that reality (space/time) only takes a certain path/form/direction if being observed, but is changing in all possible ways if being unobserved.
Lets just examine his theory abit. If you look the clock and see that it's 13:00, and then close your eyes or look away while counting seconds. After you have counted in 5 minutes and looks at the clock it should be 13:05.
If it IS, then the clock HAS been observed while your eyes were closed, or his whole theory is false.

This is where his theory destroys itself.
If there was an omniscient observer, say god, then the Collapse of the Wave Function would never have been discovered by scientists, since all Wave Functions would have been pre-collapsed, caused by the omniscient god.
And if the collapse never had been discovered, then how can he use it in his own theories?

Strange...


This is a good question, I've wondered about the same thing. What is an "observer"?
On atomic level, what's significant about an observer?
Could it be the soul?
I'll keep reading.


I hope there were no errors here (but I'm quite sure there are) , I have just started reading about QM, lpetrich may be able to clear it up better.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

hehehe... Apperantly, I'm not the only one that has asked this question before.

Why doesn't god collapse the wave function?
<a href="http://www.meta-library.net/ghc-obs/god-wav-frame.html" target="_blank">Why god?!?!? WHY!?!?!</a>

Does this mean that god isn't as omniscient as he is said to be?

Longhorn

lpetrich, r u home? Help us out here, if you have time.

Ted Hoffman

I think its inappropriate to throw in our understandings of Q. Physics into the discussion because it distracts us from the claims this Physics swami made.

The article has the scientist saying his observations come from Alain Aspect's experiment where an atom emits two quanta of light, called photons, going opposite ways, and somehow these photons affect one another's behavior at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. He says that they affect (influence) each other (at the speed of light) without exchanging signals through space - and thats the crux of the matter. They influence one another instantaneously and at the speed of light And therefore it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality.
The influence, is therefore, ladies and gentlemen, God.

I am totally out of my depth here and I would appreciate it if sbdy explained to me what he means by "exchanging signals". Do particles have to exchange signals for them to influence each other?

Otherwise, I think saying God is the influence is a non-sequitur and a God-of-the gaps case. He says we don't know why and how they influence each other therefore God makes them influence each other.
It is also a case of argument from ignorance: We dont know what does it therefore it is God.

It simply does not follow. In any case, as someone asked, which God? Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Krishna - it could be satan or Sai Baba.

The following assumptions (or premises) are made:
1. God exists (or the supernatural exists)
2. God is in a transcendent domain of reality (ie he doesnt travel through space).
3. Things that do not travel through space can influence things that travel through space.

Premise 1 is not a fact.
Premise 3 contradicts premise 2. The scientists argument therefore collapses to white ash.

What else can we say?
The scientist is talking about what is popularly known as EPR experiment. The particles do not communicate by any means we know of all we know is that every particle knows what every other particle it has ever interacted with is doing.

But do we really know that they know?
It is inconclusive because of the measurement problem, what Schrödinger attempted to explain with his "Schrödinger's cat" analogy.
Considering the collapse of the wave function, Bohr said that when observed, thats when a particle chooses a single path. When no one is watching, the electron take every possible route and therefore interferes with itself. So what swami is calling God could just be particles interfering with themselves. (what was that about "spin"?).

Begging so many questions and having unfounded premises, swamis' theory cannot be considered valid or sound.

[Edited after the collapse of a wave function of a neural chemical particle in the dark recesses of my mind]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Theli

I might have missunderstood his theory.
The part of the article I was reffering to.

The error here ofcourse is that there is nothing that points as the idea that a consciousness is required to collapse the wave function.
Where in experiments, a measurement was all that was needed.

You are reffering to Quantum Correlation i persume.

Not at the speed of light. The change is instant. That's where the problem lies. According to Einsteins theory of relativity nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

I don't understand what you mean here...
Is it the information (magnetic spin) that travels between the particles at the speed of light? What is at "the speed of light"?

This is crap. Our naturalistic reality is simply based on natural laws that we have knowledge of. If something defies those laws it doesn't mean it trancends our reality. It only trancends our knowledge of reality.

This is very dismissive. Defies our knowledge of reality doesn't mean "god", it doesn't mean supernatural either.
This is a re-occuring event on atomic level that defies our known natural laws, it's not divine intervention. It shows no sign of will, consciousness or purpose.
It's like the atom, noone would think that an atom was splittable, that's why it's called an "Atom".

Sorry about snapping there, I just get angry that Goswami guy. He seems more eager to chock then to search for the truth.

<a href="http://physics.iop.org/Policy/v_production/v2.html" target="_blank">Here's a page that could explain some.</a>

I fully agree.

Yes, the old "Schrödinger's cat". That is nothing I would take too litteraly. The cat who was both dead and alive until someone opened the box.
It does however explain (abit blunt) how the Collapse works.

<a href="http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm" target="_blank">A good page on the subject</a>

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>