pegasus_atheist

I wanted to make a clarification regarding the 2nd point. In quantum physics the word "observer" doesn't necessarily mean a human. A quantum particle can be "observed" by another quantum particle when the two interact.

Experiments show that when a pair of particles is created, they are somehow always "aware" of one another no matter how far they are (thus negating the notion of Locality). So you can technically say they are "observing" one another. Now, if we push this to the Big Bang, where (when?) all the particles were created (at the same point in spacetime), assuming the validity of the Big Bang theory, this would imply that all the particles in the universe are "aware" of all the other particles (in fact some theorists propose that it is this effect that causes inertia and that the amount of matter in the entire universe dictates the amount of inertia a given mass has... in other words if there was less matter in the universe then a given body of a given mass would have less inertia and vice versa). Thus you can say, that everything in the universe observes everything else... So I suppose the universe exists by the simple act of self-observation?
Wow... I wasn't even thinking in those terms when I decided to clarify point 2 So, how 'bout confusing the issue some more?

PA

K

SOMMS:

Your three choices may be one person's interpretation - it sounds more philosophical than scientific to me. I know Bohr made references to reality not existing aside from observation, but I don't think that is the standard. Reality can exist at the subatomic level as a superposition of states until the system is perturbed through observation. At that time it non-causally (no hidden variables) takes on one of its allowed states.

This is absolutely false. In fact, it demonstrates quite the opposite. If there were a being observing everything, then we would never have quantum superpositions - something that we know exist.

Radioactive decay is something that we can characterize statistically, but each individual decay appears to be random. With quantum mechanics, these decays would be truly random. If some hidden variables were causing the decay, causality could be preserved. No hidden variable, no causality.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

pegasus_athiest,
If by 'observed' you mean 'bumped with a quantum' yes.

Technically this is not true. Particle pairs can be created which are not entangeled. Already existing particles can be manipulated so that they become entangled.

Moreover, these particles don't really 'observe' each other in that they don't 'bump' each other...in fact they can be miles apart.

What is true (or seems to be) is non-locality. That is measurement of one entangle particle determines the measurement of the other particle. This is very different then the quantum mechanical view of 'observing' however.



Ahh...uh <blink>

Sticking to the facts...it is incorrect to say that all the particles in the universe are entangled. In fact any time particles bump...they become un-entangled.




Just the facts. We are speaking of particles that must be observed using quanta. 'Everything in the universe observes everything else' is a unilaterally false statement. Quanta from every particle in the universe would have to travel (by speed of light) to every other particle in the universe and bump into it.


We should tone down the speculation. I think your mixing your fact with fiction and getting a metaphysical, catch-phrase cocktail.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K
In other words...observing a superposition causes it to resonate to a value. This does not imply non-causality.


I think your missing the point here K. If 2 is false...then there is no objective universe serperate from observance. The beginning of this universe was a real event...thus it was observed.

This isn't saying that the same observer is perpetually bouncing quanta off every particle in the universe.



I think your making a huge leap from 'radioactive decay appears random' to 'There is no causality'.


Not really. If this were the case this would only show that values of some process may be random. This doesn't mean that causality as we know it doesn't exist. As a sanity check...take off your shoe and kick a rock then ask yourself if you pain has a cause.

Moreover, we have more evidence to think locality is false than we do to think hidden variables are false.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar

SOMMS, I think that a very strong argument can be made that everything is entangled with everything else, and (in a sense) observes everything else. Consider gravity. The entire universe, including the dark particles which seem to make up most of it, is entangled gravitationally- the farthest quasar has a microscopic gravitational effect on *you* and every other mass in the universe. That is not a quantum entanglement, perhaps, but it *is* entanglement- in fact, this seems to be the source of inertia.

I agree with your statements about Bell's Theorem- we indeed do not have to automatically deny causation. (If anyone wants to do a search for it, there is a fascinating and head-spinning book called "Philosophical Implications of Bell's Theorem"- forget the author- which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the universe is a weird, weird place!)

Oh yeah. You said

I am not directly disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that if you *really* do think 2 is false then you need to stop right now, take your American Association of Athiests card out of your wallet, cut it up then drive immediately to your nearest Sunday School. Like I said, causality is the last thing an athiest has to worry about when they claim 'hidden variables don't exist'.

I have a serious bone to pick with you here- several, in fact. The first, and least serious- after all this time, CAN'T YOU SPELL 'ATHEIST' CORRECTLY?!?!

But my main complaint- and I realize you may be joking here, but it's a damn poor joke- is that as usual, you are jumping over multiple steps between acausality and God. You may be able to make a good argument for pantheism from the philosophical implications of QM and relativity theory, and in fact I have often done so- but if you try to convince us that physics => metaphysics => Jehovah, I assure you that I will cut you off at the ankles.

K

SOMMS:

The acausality is in the final state obtained - not in the decoherence due to the observation.


I never claimed that 2 is false. You're the one who said that no hidden variables implies no objective universe apart from observation.

It's not me that made the leap on this one. The leap was made a long time ago. Quantum mechanics models radioactive decay very well, but says that the events are truly random. Some people (Einstein notably) didn't like the acausal aspects of quantum mechanics and proposed hidden variables to introduce causality back in. When Bell's Theorem was demonstrated, it showed that there were no hidden variables - there was no way to put causality into quantum mechanics.

If the output of a processes is random, that output is uncaused. That is the definition of acausal.

I never claimed that causality as we know it doesn't exist - only that if quantum mechanics is an accurate model (and it certainly seems to be), then causality doesn't exist at the quantum mechanical level. I even pointed out that things behave in a statistically predictable manner at the macroscopic level. Last time I checked, my foot was macroscopic.

There's plenty of evidence that says both may be false, but I don't think there are many out there that still believe that hidden variables are possible.

Fiach

We are limited by the strange phenomen that our observation changes the phenomenon. Particles appear out of pure vacuums. This is very common. The possibility that particles can burst through a hole in the time-space fabric in such quantity like the ass end of a black hole is one hypothesis. It may be that there is a cause but it may be fluctuations in a vacuum or dimensional planes outside of our measurement is interesting but unprovable now.

Postulating a God as a first cause, and everything must have a cause, then who caused God, and who caused that which caused the cause of God ad infinitum. That argument is plainly silly.

An anthropomorphic god is ludricous. Any reading of the Bible by a literate person should show the obvious. That man created God in Man's own image. Consciousness and cognition are evolved animal traits not needed by a God.

I am not a physicist, and frankly don't understand quantum physics. It may be correct but I cannot verify it. God is even more unlikely since like Quantum it is rather speculative, Theism is also irrational if the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is the example.

I remain most confident that creation was a natural phenomenon, of which we sill have much to explain about. There is no reason to invent a Giant Human in the Sky with a bad temper.

Fiach

pegasus_atheist

SOMMS,

That's exactly what I mean.
My mistake. Thank you for the clarification... The trouble is, even the specialists in the field aren't consistent about the terms and the ideas...
The notion that every particle is "aware" of every other particle in the Universe because they were all created during the Big Bang is not mine. This was brought forth in "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbin. Unfortunately the book is not in front of me so I can't give you the direct quote... I did search for the book yesterday, but no luck. I will clarify this once I get my hands on it.
I understand, you're differentiating between "observe" and "aware". So, particles can be "aware" of one another (due to entanglement) w/o "observing" one another. However... then, those particles that are entangled, don't exist until they are bumped by another particle... thus they get disentangled and stop being aware of one another?... GRRRRRR my brain is going into quantum flux.
I agree that there is a certain level of speculation on my part, however I am not mixing fact with fiction... the problem is everybody involved with QM is guilty of some level of speculation... just because so many of the observed phenomena don't make any logical sense! For example, how does information travel from one particle to another in an entangled pair, seemingly instantaneously, when "nothing can travel faster than light"? Most of the stuff that I have read on the subject states that a certain thing just "is", but not "why" it is. So, inevitably many explanations on the subject lead to speculations, precisely because nobody yet quite understands quantum physics.

I am not sure where you got your "metaphysical, catch-phrase cocktail" idea.

PA

Shadowy Man

Quantum mechanics is not speculative. There may be discussions of the philosophical side of it, as is going on in this thread, but the pragmatic aspects of quantum mechanics are exceedingly reliable.

K

Shadowy Man:

You're absolutely right. Scientists are able to make very accurate predictions using quantum mechanics and it's often been referred to as the most successful physical theory to date.