Scientist say the wave function is a non physical reality

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel
Microscopic quantum mechanics isn't classically local, because it's not classical physics.

Its not classically local, but its still local in relation to the quantum scale right? If not, how could any physical/material/energetic/non nothing system express non local activities? What would that mean and entail?

Locality in the relativistic sense is what you get when you apply relativity to classical field theories, where equations of motion are differential operators on some fields which are functions of (x,y,z,t). So you get notions of 'light cones' under the idea the influences can't propagate faster than 'c'.

Apparently quantum mechanics doesn't need to operate with those restrictions: the true 'state' isn't easily decomposible into classical fields on (x,y,z,t) though the classical limit it's an excellent approximation.

How much more do we need it pounded into us? Experiment says: quantum mechanics ain't local. Is it intuitive? Heck no.

If you try to transmit useful 'classical' information of the form our technology and brains can use, then sure you get the classical restrictions on actual information propagation, but the effects of the non-locality of underlying QM persists in unusual and odd ways---odd only from assuming the more intuitive perspective of classical physics even though that's actually wrong.

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: VirusGuard

I think they can deduce a message by interpreting which signal bob measures. If both are synced to say an atomic clock every billionth sec or trillionth could be a 1 or 0 and if u detect that a measure took place at that time then you log it and interpret the whole. That's my silly view of it but I'm sure there's another very strange way to see it. I need to read more.....

I don't care if it's a silly view or not because at least you gave it a go

As i understand it entangled pairs is just the right shoe and left shoe, one spins one way, the other the other and you cannot stop the spin but you can decide what time you look at the spin.

if you could change the spin (don't think you can) and the other one started to spin in another direction zillions of miles away then yes we have it even if it's one bit at a time and do very slow to allow a time delay to compensate for our clocks being slightly out of time but I don't think they can do that.

if these pairs spin one way for a three seconds and then both spin the other way for three seconds and you cannot change the spin then no data is transmitted at above the speed or light unless you say that atomic clocks transmit data faster then the speed of light.

Fuzzy logic and I seem to get the same when I question the double slit experiment and how the data gets destroyed and not just collected so I will keep trying

a reply to: mbkennel

Quantum mechanics is now telling us unambiguously that consciousness creates reality. And since quantum physics is at the root of everything, this has profound consequences for the interpretation of our own nature, the universe, and, yes, even why it may make more sense to trace everything back to a conscious intelligence rather than inanimate fields and forces.

Atom and wave function are the same thing

You really should watch the video.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: micpsi

Ok so like I thought, the 'compactafied' dimensions are pseudo dimensions. There are only 3 dimensions (plus time) but within the 3 dimensional manifold, there are very small things, which can be referred to as a pseudo dimension, or a dimension, because they are so inaccessible to classically built up conglomerates of matter.

The compactified dimensions are no more 'pseudo' than the three large-scale dimensions. They are just as real even though they are many orders of magnitude smaller. Matter extends in these higher dimensions as well, according to string theory. Making them much smaller does not make them any less real from a scientific point of view.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

When you take this into account at the very fundamental levels of our reality two particles that are entangled are in reality just that... they are connected... it doesn't matter how far apart they are at our level of reality, at the fundamental level a movement in one equates to a movement in another.

So we bend space time and they join in the center of well, lets call it a black worm hole that ejects matter or more likely information out both ends and in the center we have a proton that rips apart and one half goes out the left side and one half goes out the right.

OK so these black what ever you call them are inside a machine a meter wide and from each side we pick out these two particles using a magnet field or something and can see that one spins one way and the other spins the other way

Being a dummy I hate the word "particle" so just so I know are we talking about something like an atom with an atomic mass, an electron, proton or something we get when we spit the tiny little nucleus in the middle of an atom with it's up's, downs and glingon's

Sounds like shooting a snooker ball to me very fast at a sharp knife and one side would come off spinning one way and the other would spin the other way so it's like spiting the atom and containing any chain reaction.

Would you please correct my mistakes about the birthing process and carry on for me.

a reply to: Kashai

"Any thoughts? "

Yes i watched it to half way and it seems to be saying we have lots of big bangs and the laws of physics in each one of the big bang universes is waited towards a form of life like in one it waited towards life that needs Gama radiations to breath and loves to live at 1,0000 degrees but in our universe we evolved in we have another set of physics specifically suited to man.

We need Goldilocks zones, they didn't happen by accident, we needing these laws of physics to live, the need made the laws of physics the way they are. (No chicken and egg here, just burger and chips)

Far to many assumptions since we are finding new Goldilocks zones that suite man kind all the time and assuming that nothing could breath gama rays like we breath air.

Air to early life was a toxin and if you like the earth became polluted with air and life had to adapted or died.

Also I am not sold on the big bang theory were we read background radiation levels, do some sums and deduce we came for something smaller than a pin head, no matter how smart they think they are because not so long ago we only had one Galaxy.

Had we come into contact with a multitude of aliens then we could make assumptions but to assume they need two eyes, two legs or even live at our speed is arrogant of man.

I get we are most likely inside some type of computer simulation, ours seems to be like Mine Craft, we now have the technology to see the pixies (Big squares in minecraft), it has rules but looking across massive amounts of memory where most bits are set to zero does not tell us who we are and to me it never will, we are trapped

a reply to: mbkennel

I still dont know what you mean by quantum non locality; Is the main/only concept that gives into this notion entanglement? I have still never been convinced quantum entanglement is a real thing. At least I have never heard one explanation as to how quantum entanglement would be possible. What that would mean.

I think I get your light cone expression. But then again not really. I would think it would depend what direction the light was emitted from the source, but seeing as how a normal source of light is covered in every area with light emitters that emit in every direction, and the body doesnt drastically change over a relatively short period of time, then hmm, maybe now I see what is meant, the light that was emitted longer ago in time would have more time to expand in all directions creating a cone, ok so why doesnt this occur under the quantum model?

What would non locality mean, how does entanglement work, how/in what way are particles connected over/through an arbitrary distance of distance? How, why, what? This doesnt make sense....What does this mean the universe is. It doesnt make sense. There is no way a 'real' thing can act in this way, classically or anything whatever you want to call anything.

Everything that ever exists has to be logical! This is truth, the highest truth. This is why mechanical view is correct. What I mean by logical, is cause and effect. Locality, no spooky action. Spooky action at a distance cannot make sense. It is not possible for 'real' physical/material/existing/energetic stuff to behave that way. Can you try and describe how it may be possible. Say if space would be open or closed, galaxies, quantum level particles. What is going on in non locality, worm holes across distance, that arent made of light obeying speeds or energy or matter? Tethers of some kind, a stretchy particle? OK that is perhaps how I could believe it but still, I dont know. If 2 entangled particles were really the same exact particle, then I could almost believe it, but wouldnt that be like saying, if you had a pole with the top side painted red, and the bottem side painted blue, and it stretched across the galaxy, and you flipped it at one end, it would instantly flip at the other end? So still , this sort of particle connection across any distance of space, instantaneously, makes me extremely skeptical.

Bohm Consciousness Seminar - Part 1 to 10 at YouTube.



Parts 2 to 10 are available through the you tube icon.

If your having problems accessing the lecture which by the way is really long go to you tube and search "Bohm Consciousness Seminar".

a reply to: Kashai

Parts 2-10

I cannot take that much in and someone that gets it must be able to put it across easier than that in layman terms.

it's not like I don't know some basics like quantum jumps or anything.

a reply to: VirusGuard
I did, check page three posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:25 PM by Kashai.

a reply to: ImaFungi

"There is no way a 'real' thing can act in this way, classically or anything whatever you want to call anything.

Everything that ever exists has to be logical!"

define "real" because walls are "real" if you are inside the game would you not agree and if the rules say grunt if you bump in to a wall then that's the way it is.

I like logic and am with you 99% on this one but I was once privileges to witness something that was not logic, very boring, no I am not religious and had not been drinking, not a trick of the light, not not anything I could explain to myself even using e rational arguments and long, long before I came to the realization that we are data.

originally posted by: Kashai
I did, check page three posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:25 PM by Kashai.

Thanks man will do

a reply to: mbkennel
With all due respect; why are there scientists who are obviously well above your pay grade, that offer in conclusions that your are wrong???

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

What would non locality mean, how does entanglement work, how/in what way are particles connected over/through an arbitrary distance of distance? How, why, what? This doesnt make sense....What does this mean the universe is. It doesnt make sense. There is no way a 'real' thing can act in this way, classically or anything whatever you want to call anything.

They are connected because they contain information about each other. That's really all you need to create an entangled pair. For example an electron and a positron may be created in such a way that their spins must be opposite each other when measured. This way we know the spin off both by measuring one. May not seem so strange, but there is more to it. You can measure spin in any desired direction, but only if both measurements are in the same direction will you get perfect correlation (always opposite spins). Even that may not seem so strange, and in fact it could be explained classically if that's all there is to it, but there are more subtle details. It's what happens when measurements are performed at some angle to each other that makes conventional physics break down.

It requires getting quite technical to explain entanglement completely. I was working on an analogy with Alices and Bobs answering questions in a way much like particles reveal their spin, but it will probably get pretty long. If anyone is interested in a full account on entanglement that requires little or no mathematical knowledge, let me know.

a reply to: Deran

Yes everyone is interested in a full account of entanglement that requires little or no math, post it.

So are they the same physical particle? Would it be as if the particle can be 'stretched' out to any distance, and then the distance or length of that particle is arbitrary, it doesnt need time or space to process a 'sensual' like system, it is automatically responsive? Does entanglement suggest each minute quanta has its very own reality, and the totality of minute original, fundamental quanta, exist in the same exact point, overlapping each other, and then space is an illusion...this is the type of stupid stuff I am forced to think of, because entanglement makes no physical, realistic, real sense.

The only way it makes sense is if the universe is not some rocky clunky swamp dump, but a sophisticated computer of some kind. Please tell me how it can be a real physical/material system that can display what 'entanglement' is thought to be? And if you say, "well thats the thing, you see, its not a physical/material system", define your terms and tell me what a non physical/material system, means, and can be, and how it can exist.

originally posted by: VirusGuard


define "real" because walls are "real" if you are inside the game would you not agree and if the rules say grunt if you bump in to a wall then that's the way it is.

I like logic and am with you 99% on this one but I was once privileges to witness something that was not logic, very boring, no I am not religious and had not been drinking, not a trick of the light, not not anything I could explain to myself even using e rational arguments and long, long before I came to the realization that we are data.

My definition of real is everything that is not nothing. The totality of objectivity. (and what subjectivity is, objectively...and maybe the exactness of subjectivity).

That we are data..hm, so what are you saying, everything that can ever exist is 'data', whats your point? Do you have any information or explanatory example or comprehension of what the universe is? You are saying its gods computer, or an alien zoo experiment?

Only those things which are real, be they phenomenon or action or item, exist. All real items and phenomenon may be explained through rational analysis and may be replicated through experimentation. Therefore if this phenomenon exists, it is real and it has an explanation which may be quantified and replicated. Failure to understand or be able to quantify the the action or the result does not mean that anything "metaphysical" or "supernatural" is occurring. It simply means a piece of the explanation is not yet readily apparent. IF the phenomenon can be shown to exist, than it is real. If it is real, it will be possible to quantify, explain, and replicate the results. If that does not occur, then it is not real.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

I still dont know what you mean by quantum non locality; Is the main/only concept that gives into this notion entanglement?

Non-locality means "space-time points which cannot have a causal connection in physics described by a classical geometric field theory subject to relativistic requirements."

Well, because QM isn't one of those theories, you don't get the same result always, though in practical limiting cases those restrictions are nearly always true. Except when they aren't.

"I have still never been convinced quantum entanglement is a real thing. At least I have never heard one explanation as to how quantum entanglement would be possible. What that would mean."

It means that quantum mechanics is correct.

I think I get your light cone expression. But then again not really. I would think it would depend what direction the light was emitted from the source, but seeing as how a normal source of light is covered in every area with light emitters that emit in every direction, and the body doesnt drastically change over a relatively short period of time, then hmm, maybe now I see what is meant, the light that was emitted longer ago in time would have more time to expand in all directions creating a cone, ok so why doesnt this occur under the quantum model?

Because quantum mechanics is an operator evolution equation of motion on a function space, not on a continuum of 3+1 (or 12 or 15-dimensional) space. Points in this space are not geometrical points, a point is a function.

When the effect in question is modulated through evolution in this space, and not some classical approximation, you get effects which would be strange or prohibited in the classical approximatnio.

What would non locality mean, how does entanglement work, how/in what way are particles connected over/through an arbitrary distance of distance? How, why, what? This doesnt make sense....What does this mean the universe is. It doesnt make sense. There is no way a 'real' thing can act in this way, classically or anything whatever you want to call anything.

No it doesn't "make sense" in the slightest but it happens to be true as far as we can tell by experiment.

Evolution operator in a functional space. Sorry, ourmind capabilities were evolved for survival in a macroscopic three dimensional world, and we have no easy neural capabilities for envisioning a functional space. We have neural hardware to imagine 3 dimensions in our head using neural units from our visual cortex. Maybe dolphins who have to interpret complex sonar wavefunctions might do better?

Everything that ever exists has to be logical! This is truth, the highest truth. This is why mechanical view is correct. What I mean by logical, is cause and effect. Locality, no spooky action. Spooky action at a distance cannot make sense.

Only if you assume the evolution of true physics is on local fields with only differential operators. Experiment shows this isn't the case, and QM's model is better. If you assume it is churning through the Bohr/Heisenberg equation of motion, then QM works. Go forth and integrate your operator---it gives the right result. "Distance" is measured in functional space.

It is not possible for 'real' physical/material/existing/energetic stuff to behave that way. Can you try and describe how it may be possible. Say if space would be open or closed, galaxies, quantum level particles. What is going on in non locality, worm holes across distance, that arent made of light obeying speeds or energy or matter?

Relativity means imposing certain mathematical constraints on the underlying physics and equations of motion. When applied to certain classical theories you get light-cone restrictions.

Tethers of some kind, a stretchy particle?

No. The real physics is in Hilbert space, and our 3-d space-separated perception is the "projection".

OK that is perhaps how I could believe it but still, I dont know. If 2 entangled particles were really the same exact particle, then I could almost believe it, but wouldnt that be like saying, if you had a pole with the top side painted red, and the bottem side painted blue, and it stretched across the galaxy, and you flipped it at one end, it would instantly flip at the other end? So still , this sort of particle connection across any distance of space, instantaneously, makes me extremely skeptical.

Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.

Me knocking on my door isn't going to change the weather in Timbuktu. We know this, because we are making assumptions about propagation of causal influences through 3-d space and operation of physics. At their core, they are approximations and the deepest reality is otherwise and mindblowing.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
[
My definition of real is everything that is not nothing.

My definition of real is "contributes as a source term in gravitation".

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel
With all due respect; why are there scientists who are obviously well above your pay grade, that offer in conclusions that your are wrong???

Any thoughts?

What is their position? Mine is minimal, and I thought should be uncontroversial: quantum mechanics as it is presently known is right and there's nothing else needed, and we should get used to it, and mentally reassess where we're imposing biases from classical physics.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Deran

Yes everyone is interested in a full account of entanglement that requires little or no math, post it.

Full account might have been an overstatement on my part, but I can illustrate how it works.

Imagine the following thought experiment.

Two people, Alice and Bob, are given a list of yes/no questions. The experimenter tells them that in a short while, they will be taken into separate rooms, where they will be asked one question from the list each.

The experimenter then poses them with a challenge. If they are asked the same question, they must give the same answer. If they are asked different questions, they may answer what they wish.

Easy, says Alice and Bob, since all they need to do is to agree upon an answer for each question before they go in. This way they will always answer the same thing if asked the same question.

Next up, the experimenter increases the difficulty of the challenge by adding another rule. This time, they must still give the same answer if asked the same questions, but additionally, they must give opposite answers if asked specific combinations of questions. They are handed a list with the questions, and told which questions must be answered oppositely.

Is it still easy?

As it turns out, depending on what questions must be answered oppositely, Alice and Bob may have to evolve telepathic abilities to pass the challenge.

I will illustrate with two examples.

Example 1: Questions 1/2 must be answered oppositely, aswell as questions 2/3 and 3/4.
Alice and Bob can pass this challenge by choosing their answers accordingly:
Alice: 1: yes, 2: no, 3: yes, 4: no
Bob: 1: yes, 2: no, 3: yes, 4: no

If they are both asked the same question, they will always answer the same thing. If Alice is asked question 1 and Bob is asked question 2, their answers will be opposite, and so on. All good.

Example 2: This time, questions 1/2, 2/3 and 1/3 must be answered oppositely.
In this case, it is no longer possible to pass the challenge by simply agreeing upon answers beforehand. If they try, they will come to the conclusion that the answer to one question must depend on what was answered to it's counterpart. As in:
Alice: 1: yes, 2: no, 3: ?, 4: no
Bob: 1: yes, 2: no, 3: ?, 4: no

If they choose the answer to question 3 to be yes, then they have to change the answer to question 1, and then question 2 must be answered by yes instead of no, which means question 3 in turn needs to be answered with no. A self-contradiction.

Alice and Bob now only have one option: cheating. They can either try to find out what questions the experimenter will choose, or they can attempt to eavesdrop when the other person gets their question.

Okay, so how does this relate to entanglement? Alice and Bob correspond to entangled particles. The questions they are asked correspond to measurements of their spin (each question corresponding to a measurement along some axis). The rules that dictate how they need to answer the questions correspond to the laws of physics, such as conservation laws and the uncertainty principle.

The main point here is that when measuring spin you get either up or down (compare: yes/no), and whether the spins of the two particles are equal or opposite depends on what directions you choose to perform the measurements in (compare: Alice and Bob gets the same question -> same direction of measurement, Alice and Bob gets different questions -> different directions of measurement).

With some clever mathematics, you can prove that the universe behaves like example 2; and experimentally (theoretically too, actually) you can show that entangled particles pass the test anyway, as if they're cheating.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So are they the same physical particle? Would it be as if the particle can be 'stretched' out to any distance, and then the distance or length of that particle is arbitrary, it doesnt need time or space to process a 'sensual' like system, it is automatically responsive? Does entanglement suggest each minute quanta has its very own reality, and the totality of minute original, fundamental quanta, exist in the same exact point, overlapping each other, and then space is an illusion...this is the type of stupid stuff I am forced to think of, because entanglement makes no physical, realistic, real sense.

Technically they are in a 'shared existence'. Quantum mechanics show that a particle's behaviour is governed by a wave function. In the case of entangled particles, they are one and the same wave function. In this sense, you could regard them as the same thing, but I wouldn't say they are the same physical particle. They are the same wave function; but since we do not know exactly what a wave function is, it might be too soon to claim that it's the same particle. You could just as well regard it as two particles that are forced to follow the same set of rules. With this in mind i wouldn't say they have their very own realities, since they are in a shared state.

You ask if the particle is stretched; i would say no, it's the wave function that 'stretches' and not the actual particles, and somehow the entire wave function manages to change simultaneously even though it may be 'stretched' over great distances.

Also, I believe it can be a valid interpretation that all things exist in the same point and that space is an illusion. If you choose to interpret it that way, then the wave function doesn't really stretch, it just appears to be stretched. This is really beyond my scope though.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The only way it makes sense is if the universe is not some rocky clunky swamp dump, but a sophisticated computer of some kind. Please tell me how it can be a real physical/material system that can display what 'entanglement' is thought to be? And if you say, "well thats the thing, you see, its not a physical/material system", define your terms and tell me what a non physical/material system, means, and can be, and how it can exist.

It's not like the universe can be 'unreal' or 'unphysical', that would make no sense. In the end, the universe is something, and 'something' is neither unreal nor unphysical, no matter what it is. And no matter how strange the mechanics behind the scenes, it doens't make what we experience anything less than real.

But I think I see what you're getting at, the fact that entanglement seems to be some form of 'magic' (spooky action, as einstein called it). There is no universally accepted explanation as to how entanglement actually works. All we know and can prove is that it happens and that there's something very strange about it. There has been several suggested mechanisms behind entanglement recently. For example, a paper suggesting that entangled particles are connected via wormholes was published just a few months ago.