It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Quantum Eraser Experiment show that consciousness creates reality?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're just flat out wrong.

It always makes me laugh when people want to declare that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness. If you don't know what consciousness is, how can you say what consciousness is not?

When you look at the delayed choice experiment, quantum eraser or entanglement swapping, the observers choice to know which path information determines the history of the particle. The particle has no history until an observer knows which path information. I will quote Wheeler again:


The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.


Why isn't there a history independent of the observers choice? If an observer doesn't know which path information then you have probabilities.

You also mentioned time and that's important as well. I believe that the flow of time is an illusion of consciousness and these experiments support this conclusion. There's an arrow of time due to entropy but the flow of time is an illusion of consciousness.

So events happen simultaneously but because of decoherence we measure events one event at a time. Our consciousness ties these events together into what we call the flow of time. This goes back to Einstein who said something very important. He said the DISTINCTION between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion. This is exactly what these experiments show.

Scientist are even know talking about the wave function being a non physical reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

arxiv.org...

The evidence points to consciousness playing a role and maybe even being the driving force when it comes to quantum mechanics. This is why you hear terms like "magical powers" and "quantum woo" because they can't debate or refute the issue.




posted on May, 19 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
consciousness creates reality in the sense that it gives context to random sequences of energy that would otherwise remain to be seen in their current state



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Everything in the universe has a past present or future regardless of observation. Time itself has a flow you can look into the universe and see galaxies that existed before life did on this rock we call earth. Those galaxies didnt pop into existence because were here in fact quite the opposite where here because they existed. See you are an integral part of our universe every atom in your body was created in a star. In effect we are thw universe but it had to do alot to get us here. Your argent is the past cannot exist without an observer's but we couldnt be here without a past.


As far as Einstein once again you quote without undertanding. Einstine showed us time is relative to thw observer and thw flow of time isnt the same everywhere what could be a month for me could be years to you. He wasnt saying time doesnt exist his theory is dependent on the fact it does. Id also suggest you read Wheelers quote again hes trying to tell you we are apart of the universe and it took alot of things to happen for us to even be here.


Dae

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
The particles arent changing magically because of the observation.


Can we say, "the photons are changing in a scientific way because of the observation, whether sentient or not" ? If not, what do you think causes the particle - or - wave result when observed or not?



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Scientist are even know talking about the wave function being a non physical reality.


As far as I've seen no experimental result has refuted the picture of Bohr and Heisenberg, with no 'popping' as a fundamental principle instead of a dynamic outcome of regular physics.

Some of the thought experiments carelessly mix classical assumptions with quantum ones and that's how you get confused.



The evidence points to consciousness playing a role and maybe even being the driving force when it comes to quantum mechanics.


No, the experiments show interactions with measuring devices like photodetectors.

I think the experiments also show that quantum properties are 'non-local' in a way which is relativistically prohibited to classical point particles.

Since all sorts of other stuff of classical physics stops working, what's the problem with this one not working? Why do people cling to it harder?

Relativity is about imposing certain symmetries & transformation axioms in equations of motion and this hasn't ever been violated.


edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you're just flat out wrong.

It always makes me laugh when people want to declare that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness. If you don't know what consciousness is, how can you say what consciousness is not?

When you look at the delayed choice experiment, quantum eraser or entanglement swapping, the observers choice to know which path information determines the history of the particle. The particle has no history until an observer knows which path information. I will quote Wheeler again:


The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.


Why isn't there a history independent of the observers choice? If an observer doesn't know which path information then you have probabilities.

You also mentioned time and that's important as well. I believe that the flow of time is an illusion of consciousness and these experiments support this conclusion. There's an arrow of time due to entropy but the flow of time is an illusion of consciousness.


What about the simpler explanation? That both classical locality and flow of time are classical illusions (but very very good ones) from the same entropic & thermodynamic consequences of large N decoherence.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dae

originally posted by: dragonridr
The particles arent changing magically because of the observation.


Can we say, "the photons are changing in a scientific way because of the observation, whether sentient or not" ? If not, what do you think causes the particle - or - wave result when observed or not?


No photons arent changing in a scientific way. we merely changed the parameters through observing with our instruments.This is the reason the wave function collapses even with out a sentient being involved which was proved through experiments. Humans dont even have to know when or if the system is being monitored to cause it to collapse meaning we arent an integral part. As for what causes the wave function to collapse well read this.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

It always makes me laugh when people declare the humans and consciousness have nothing to do with quantum mechanics when they don't even know what consciousness is and they don't have a full understanding of quantum mechanics.

The key problem in quantum mechanics is the measurement problem. This has everything to do with a conscious observer and this is why you have these different interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is because people don't want to accept what quantum mechanics tells us. So you have these interpretations trying to explain why consciousness collapses the wave function.

So in many worlds interpretation, wave function collapse is an illusion. You have apparent wave function collapse. Again, this is just an interpretation that tries to get around the fact that a conscious observer can collapse the wave function. So it avoids the measurement problem and calls it an illusion. This is a quote from the Wiki article about decoherence.


Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".


Again, decoherence doesn't explain the measurement problem and sadly a lot of people misuse decoherence in order to support their own beliefs.

When you look at a density matrix, you have diagonal and off diagonal terms. The diagonal terms represent the real components of the wave function. So you can get a 64% chance of finding a particle in one state and a 36% chance of finding a particle in a different state. The off diagonal terms represent the imaginary components of the wave function.

When decoherence occurs the imaginary components go to zero and you're left with a mixed state instead of a pure state. Decoherence just tells you why you don't see interference between states, it doesn't explain how or why probabilities go to one definite state when a measurement occurs.

Where's the evidence that the particle has a back history independent of a conscious observer knowing which path information? You said:


Everything in the universe has a past present or future regardless of observation.


Where's the evidence for this? Experiments show that observation brings a history into existence. This is on a classical level and also on a quantum level.

When I go into the store to buy a 2 liter of pop, I can buy a Mountain Dew or a Coke. When a measurement occurs and I buy a Coke or a Mountain Dew a history evolves from that choice. This is the same thing that occurs with particles. When a measurement occurs, the wave function goes from probabilities to a definite state and then evolves from the point of measurement.

So a history evolves from the choice of measurement from a conscious observer. You can't get around this no matter how many universes you come up with. Richard Dawkins ran into this problem when he tried to explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant.



Here's a simple explanation of the wave function that illustrates the measurement problem. And again, there's not enough universes that anyone can come up with that can get around this.



Lastly, you talked about Einstein and again you need to understand what Einstein was talking about. Einstein saw physics as holistic. He said this:


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein


Einstein didn't say time is an illusion, he said the DISTINCTION between the past, present and the future was a persistent illusion. This is very profound and speaks to the oneness of the universe. I say this oneness is CONSCIOUSNESS.

When Einstein said this who was he talking to? It was the family of a friend of his who had just died.


In a letter of condolence to the Besso family Albert Einstein wrote his now famous quote "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."


en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein wasn't in a lecture or writing a book, he was sending a letter to his friends family after he died. This makes what Einstein said even more profound. Why would you say something like this to a friends family at his death?

If a person dies today and then someone dies 5 years from today, if there's no DISTINCTION between past, present and future, then death is an illusion of the flow of time. Who makes this distinction between the past, present and future? The laws of physics work just as well backwards as they do going forward in time.


At the level of tiny particles, the laws of physics are symmetrical in time. A reaction that proceeds in one direction (such as particle A transforming into particle B) is just as likely to occur in the reverse direction (particle B transforming into A).

It’s not too strange a concept: A video showing a billiard ball’s initial bounce off a pool table’s cushion would look the same whether it was running backward or forward in time. The physics works just as well, and identically, either way.

Despite the strong theoretical reasons for expecting this example of time-reversal violation to take place, the discovery is still an exciting confirmation. “In physics, nothing is there until you actually see it,” says Valencia-based lead investigator, Fernando Martínez-Vidal.


discovermagazine.com...

The flow of time is an illusion of consciousness. We connect measurements locally to form a past, present and future in order to make sense of our local experience but this distinction isn't seen in the laws of physics, yet this distinction persist in our consciousness.


Dae

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

How do you get around the fact that the observer is a detector machine, not human consciousness? I always understood this as the act of observing causes the collapse and it didn't matter if that observing was conscious or not.

Mmm too nice of a day to be sat in pondering the possibilities of the universal wave function! *goes off to do some sun worship*


Dae

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Sorry, I was getting confused to what was being discussed, the difference between what causes the collapse (the decoherence explanation) and why it collapses (unknown, possible universal wave function). Maybe I'm still confused hehe

The vid in the OP, did you say it used diagrams from another experiment to explain a different one?

"No photons arent changing in a scientific way. we merely changed the parameters through observing with our instruments."

*giggles* well it's not happening in a musical way now is it? The change/collapse does happen in a scientific way, ie us doing the observing with instruments (minus the orchestra) as opposed to the collapse happening in a natural way - not us doing it sir, kind of way. I suppose that could lead to the next step that the scientific observation is a tool of human consciousness... but then I don't like word play in science! Hmmm maybe neoholographic sees the tools as an extension of human consciousness and dragonridr see it as separate and therefore the human aspect is not a variable?



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   


This all depends on what the experimenter knows. If quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a conscious observer then why does a particle behave based on what an experimenter knows or doesn't know?


The outcome of such experiments doesn't depend on what the observer knows. It depends on the existence of measuring devices. The 'observer' referred in Quantum Physics texts is a measuring apparatus, it's not the humans which observe the experiment.

Humans always observe these experiments. Otherwise we wouldn't know if an interference pattern appears or not. The outcome changes only when we put a measuring apparatus in the experiment to measure the photons before they hit the screen.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: masterp


This all depends on what the experimenter knows. If quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a conscious observer then why does a particle behave based on what an experimenter knows or doesn't know?


The outcome of such experiments doesn't depend on what the observer knows. It depends on the existence of measuring devices. The 'observer' referred in Quantum Physics texts is a measuring apparatus, it's not the humans which observe the experiment.

Humans always observe these experiments. Otherwise we wouldn't know if an interference pattern appears or not. The outcome changes only when we put a measuring apparatus in the experiment to measure the photons before they hit the screen.



It always amazes me people always want to make the observer effect some magical thing. Especially the sites trying to get in touch with your inner self or chee or whatever else. The equate mystical properties to something that science is familiar with but people here about wave function collapses and they think wow just by looking we can change the universe.

Here is a definition for the observer effect.




n science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

Historically, the observer effect has been confused with the uncertainty principle


en.wikipedia.org...(physics)


edit on 5/24/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: masterp


This all depends on what the experimenter knows. If quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a conscious observer then why does a particle behave based on what an experimenter knows or doesn't know?


The outcome of such experiments doesn't depend on what the observer knows. It depends on the existence of measuring devices. The 'observer' referred in Quantum Physics texts is a measuring apparatus, it's not the humans which observe the experiment.

Humans always observe these experiments. Otherwise we wouldn't know if an interference pattern appears or not. The outcome changes only when we put a measuring apparatus in the experiment to measure the photons before they hit the screen.



This is just flat out wrong.

Of course human observation plays a big role in Quantum Mechanics. If it didn't we wouldn't have a measurement problem and we wouldn't have all of these interpretations that try to explain the role of consciousness.

In many worlds interpretation, it's apparent collapse of the wave function. With Penrose it's self collapse do to quantum gravity and consciousness occurs on planck scales. In Copenhagen, the wave function is statistical and represents the uncertainty of the observer.

It's always funny how some people say these things. If you were correct, we could just throw out every interpretation of quantum mechanics. Of course you're not correct and you can't escape consciousness or the observers choice and it doesn't matter how many universes may be out there.

You say these things depend on the existence of a measuring device, yet a measuring device we use in a lab depends on the existence of a conscious observer to CHOOSE to make it. How can you separate a measuring device from the conscious observer that created it in order to know things like which path information?

Fritjof Capra said this:


"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum"


This is a very important point. This is because a subatomic particle has no definite position or momentum until a conscious observer chooses to measure that observable. This is clearly shown by things like the Free Will Theorem.

A quantum system is in a state of probabilities and a conscious observer can choose which observable to measure. That measurement also reaches back into the past. The particle has no history or no path until a conscious observer makes the choice to measure an observable of the quantum system.

How can you separate the double slit experiment and the results of the double slit experiment from the conscious observer who made the choice to know which path information. I think Wheeler is right when he said we're actually more than just observers but active participators.

It's just like if I go into a store to buy a bag of chips. Until I buy a bag of chips, there's just a probability that I could buy one of the chips on the rack. When I buy sour cream chips, then a measurement occurs and a history flows from that measurement.

The same thing happens on a quantum level. A conscious observer makes the CHOICE to measure an observable of the quantum system. That observable exists in a state of probabilities until the conscious observer makes a choice to carry out a measurement. The observable "collapses" into a definite state and the wave function begins to evolve from the point of that measurement.

The only difference is, on a quantum level, you can see the interference between quantum states. On a classical level, you can't see any interference between a measurement of buying a bag of sour cream chips or buying a bag of cheddar cheese chips because of decoherence.

Like I said, you're just flat out wrong and nothing you said has anything to do with the measurement problem or interpretations in quantum mechanics.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Your confusing the uncertainty principle with the observer effect. Everything you mentioned is explained by the uncertainty principle. One of the biggest problems with quantum experiments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency of humans to influence the situation and velocity of small particles. This happens just by our observing the particles, and it has quantum physicists frustrated. Just us attempting to observe the particles changes there behavior because in order to observe them we have to alter the experiment. For example when physicists use light to help them better see the objects they're observing can influence the behavior of quanta. Even light can cause a particle to bounce around which changes its velocity and vector.

edit on 5/25/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Wrong again.

The measurement problem or why a conscious observer can choose to measure an observable of the quantum system isn't explained by the uncertainty principle. If it was, we wouldn't have these different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

It's not just observers observing particles that have them frustrated. It's the fact that a conscious observer can choose to measure an observable of a quantum system and when a measurement occurs the definite state of the observable happens in an indeterministic way.

So humans don't just influence the situation their choice causes the wave function to "collapse". So I can go into a lab and choose to measure the position of a quantum system. This system has no definite position until I choose to measure it.

Like I said, you can't get around it. If you could, there wouldn't be a need for all of these interpretations of quantum mechanics.


5 Summary of common interpretations of quantum mechanics

5.1 Classification adopted by Einstein
5.2 The Copenhagen interpretation
5.3 Many worlds
5.4 Consistent histories
5.5 Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
5.6 de Broglie–Bohm theory
5.7 Relational quantum mechanics
5.8 Elementary cycles
5.9 Transactional interpretation
5.10 Stochastic mechanics
5.11 Objective collapse theories
5.12 von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
5.13 Many minds
5.14 Quantum logic
5.15 Quantum information theories
5.16 Modal interpretations of quantum theory
5.17 Time-symmetric theories
5.18 Branching space–time theories
5.19 Other interpretations


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Wrong its a common mistake your making the universe and the laws of physics dont change just because your watching.Really think about what your saying it would mean the universe didnt exist until it was observed. But we know it did or we wouldnt be here to observe it.Tell you what take the time to understand physics dont let your source be some website promoting some new age rant. There is no experiment ever done that merely by choice caused a wave function to collapse. You bought into a lie you were told. But by all means show me where merely thought can change the outcome of the universe. You need to look at the definition i poster earlier on observer effect and what it means. ttom line is Physics occurs with or without us are only goal is to figure out who or what set the rules.And showing there are lots of branches to QM just shows us we still have alot to learn has mothing to do with the magical properties you want to give to humans.
edit on 5/25/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
When I hear this conversation I feel that one point needs to be made clear: The idea that consciousness collapses the wave is valid, the idea that human consciousness does is not. An animal mind, a robot mind, even a system that changes states is enough to create those effects. If you want to assert a role for consciousness you can do so, but in so doing, you need to be prepared to accept the strange idea that we all live in a sea of consciousness, a sea of mind constantly creating the world, a world in which your cat is as active a creating mind as you are.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: neoholographic
When I hear this conversation I feel that one point needs to be made clear: The idea that consciousness collapses the wave is valid, the idea that human consciousness does is not. An animal mind, a robot mind, even a system that changes states is enough to create those effects. If you want to assert a role for consciousness you can do so, but in so doing, you need to be prepared to accept the strange idea that we all live in a sea of consciousness, a sea of mind constantly creating the world, a world in which your cat is as active a creating mind as you are.


Id go even a step further and say just the act of putting a slit in the way of the path of light. As the light passes through the slit this will cause diffraction altering the path of photons. Anytime anything is added to any experiment will change factors and give different results.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again you're talking about "magical properties" and "new age" because you can't debate the issue. You haven't presented a shred of evidence for anything you have said. Tell me, how does the uncertainty principle answer the measurement problem in quantum mechanics? You say you're mixing the observer effect and the uncertainty principle but you don't say how. In your own words, how does this relate to the measurement problem and the choice of the conscious observer to measure an observable of the quantum system?

You said:


Really think about what your saying it would mean the universe didnt exist until it was observed. But we know it did or we wouldnt be here to observe it.


First off, there isn't any classical time separation on a quantum level, so what do you mean the universe didn't exist UNTIL it was observed?

How do you know the universe existed before it was observed? Where is your evidence of objective time separation on a classical level?

How do you know consciousness isn't fundamental to reality and consciousness can't be found at Planck Scales ala Roger Penrose?

This goes back also to Einstein and saying the Distinction between the past, present and future are a persistent illusion. A plane of space-time from the early universe could be on the same plane as conscious beings, so the universe was fined tuned for our existence. There's no evidence that that the classical time separation that we experience is any more than a persistent illusion of consciousness.

Here's a video of Professor Brian Greene explaining this beautifully.



How can what we call the "past" exist if it wasn't first observed?

If I go to a store and buy a bag of sour cream chips, that "past" of me eating a bag of sour cream chips doesn't exist until I make the choice to buy a bag of sour cream chips.

So there isn't any past or future, it's all the same now. The only thing that gives these now moments a past, present and future is the local experience of the observer. So the now of me buying a bag of sour cream chips is no different than the now of George Washington crossing the Delaware. These are just 2 measurements that occur in different points in space-time.

There's no evidence that classical time separation has any objective reality outside of the observers local experience. In fact, all of the evidence says that it doesn't. Space-time is a canvas where NOW occurs. So in order to say the universe existed before it was observed, you have to show that BEFORE actually has an objective existence.
edit on 26-5-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I had this question over 5 years ago because I was a double physics and psychology major, and I have been researching past then ever since. I think it is one of the most intelligent questions that has to be asked and taken seriously the first half of this 21st century. Maybe it will even end up being the question of the century.
edit on 26pmMon, 26 May 2014 12:00:39 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join