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.

 

What is Decoherence?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: trifecta

Information can be transfered between anyrhing. 2 electrons coming into contact a photon hitting an atom.everything exchanges information. Any time information is exchanged it is being observed.Like the video camera stored information in our hypothetical that information could be used later to assess when the cat died. But information had to pass to our camera on the form of photons hitting the lens.

The act of any observation on a system is to transfer information.




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again, decoherence doesn't tell you in which state the cat will be found in when it interacts with the environment. In fact until it interacts with the environment it doesn't have a definite state. So unless there's something outside of the "universe" that measures the universe then reality doesn't exist. What we call a universe is just an approximation of measurements that conscious observers call a universe. So what we call reality doesn't exist until measured and even then it's an approximation of a pure state that conscious observers call "reality."


Reality doesn't exist yet here you are. You think this is a problem with reality and not with your reasoning?

Tell me. How does one measure something that doesn't yet exist? The notion is ridiculous.

This consciousness creates reality tripe is utterly untenable. How are you able to become conscious of an apple if there is no apple there?


edit on 10-6-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: trifecta

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's some more about decoherence.

Decoherence does not claim to provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it puts forth a reasonable mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists — at least for all practical purposes[23] — beyond the realm of measurement.[24] Of course by definition the claim that a merged but unmeasurable wavefunction still exists cannot be proven experimentally.

While decoherence explains why a quantum system begins to obey classical probability rules after interacting with its environment (due to the suppression of the interference terms when applying Born's probability rules to the system), it does not explain what an observation actually is. Thus, it does not explain why the environment is seen to be in one definite state rather than in a superposition of states.


en.wikipedia.org...

This is what I call the MATERIALIST DILEMMA.

First, trying to use decoherence as a scientific theory to explain observed evidence is ASININE. It clearly shows the materialist are desperate. Science clearly shows Consciousness creates "reality" and the universe is fine-tuned for life.

In the face of this, materialist don't bring us anything scientific just fantasy.

If a person started a thread that said God created the universe, the first thing materialist would say is prove it. They would say show me the evidence.

Now they're faced with experiments that show materialism is a pipe dream, they're willing to accept a global superposition of the wave function THAT STILL EXISTS BUT IS BEYOND THE REALM OF MEASUREMENT. It still exists but cannot be proven experimentally.

Again, this is just nonsense and utter hypocrisy because as soon as someone talks anything materialist don't agree with, the first thing they say is that's not science or where's the experiment and now they're off on fantasy island because they want to hold on to their material beliefs.

Secondly, it begins to obey classical probability rules AFTER INTERACTING WITH IT'S ENVIRONMENT!! Exactly what I said. If you have a system in a box like a cat that isn't interacting with the outside environment, how can decoherence occur???? IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHAT AN OBSERVATION ACTUALLY IS.


That's because you don't understand information. Information can be anything attained about a system. The only rule that causes people a problem is we cant observe more than 1 state at a time. IN QM I am restricted to either or the other properties don't change just because I can't see them. But this is where probabilities come into the math. In QM we can use probabilities to deduce outcomes independent of observation.

When we say something is in a superposition it simply means we can have multiple probabilities based on the information we obtained. Through QM we can use these probabilities to determine what will happen. This isn't some kind of mystic mumbo jumbo where the universe doesn't exist or with out us it wouldn't it was here long before we were and will be here long after us.
.


I think you've misinterpreted what he is saying.

He wants to know what constitutes observation? Collection of information and data is a broad and simplistic anecdote.

Is the objects state determined by a particular, human observer? Does the state's potential result deviate, depending on different human observers? If the object is observed by a device, and never by human eye, has it technically been observed by definition? If so, what influence does mechanical collection of data infer on the subject's state? If data collected through mechanical means is read or interpretated by a human, does that qualify or influence the pending results?

Those are the variables I believe he is suggesting ratification. The point being this is just another vaporous pirouette, that exemplifies the wealth of pipe dreams, in light of discontinuity, ad absurdum.



Good questions.

When people try to act like they know the answer, they don't. It's mostly materialist speaking from the conviction of their beliefs. This stems from a misunderstanding of things like decoherence.

If the answer was that simple there wouldn't be all of these different interpretations trying to explain the same thing. What constitutes an observation? Why does a conscious observer see a definite state instead of probabilities? What the quantum-classical boundary? What's consciousness and what role does it play?

The problem here is, materialist have no answer. They don't even know what consciousness is but they want to proclaim that consciousness HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. That's just silly.

There's a reason Schrodinger's cat is still hotly debated today. If there was a cut and dry materialist answer, why is there still this debate? The one thing some try to push is decoherence but that doesn't explain anything. In fact, it tries to avoid the problem in favor of a merging global wave function that can't be measured or seen experimentally.

How many times has a materialist got on a thread and asked for scientific evidence yet when the science doesn't support their materialist fantasy, then it's not about evidence but some global wave function that can't be measured or tested experimentally. That sounds like another version of god. At least people who are religious admit they have faith. The materialist have to have stronger faith to accept these things in the face of scientific evidence that goes in the opposite direction of their belief.

Let's go back to the camera.

First off, Science can't tell you that my couch in my living room takes a definite position in my living room when I'm not in there sitting on it.

Every experiment so far has violated macrorealism.

You have some people who will say, look at this experiment you don't need consciousness but how did they carry out the experiment without consciousness? How did they report the results without consciousness? How do you have different interpretations of QM without consciousness having different interpretations of QM?

When you have a cat in a box that's isolated from an external environment and a the radioactive substance is isolated from the cat, how can you say the cat in the box is in a definite position? How can you even say there's a cat in the box? What's a cat? Does a cat have an objective reality outside of a conscious observer calling it a cat?

This also poses questions about our "universe." How can there be an exchange of information if a system is isolated from any outside environment?

So a camera in the box with the cat will record a live cat/dead cat and maybe no cat at all. The camera could be in a universe where cats don't exist.

All that we can say exists is CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. Outside of that it's just speculation and interpretations.

People keep saying these things have an objective existence but they have NO EVIDENCE. They say things like "you can't be serious" or "these things have to exist." When people try to debate like this it means they have no evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You said:

Tell me. How does one measure something that doesn't yet exist? The notion is ridiculous.

We do it all the time. In the double slit experiment, WHICH PATH INFORMATION doesn't exist until it's measured.

So what we call the universe or what we call reality doesn't exist until an conscious observer creates it. THE OBSERVERS CHOICE CREATES REALITY.

There's growing evidence that the wave function is a non physical reality.

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


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

Again, you guys keep talking like, "How can he ask that question." But you don't offer any evidence just messages of incredulity that someone can even say these things.

This is how you know you're debating belief not science. There's no evidence that the universe exists independent of conscious observers. EVERY EXPERIMENT OCCURS BECAUSE A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER MADE THE CHOICE TO CARRY OUT THAT EXPERIMENT.

What we call reality or the universe is just an approximation of measurements of observable states encoded on a non physical wave function. Consciousness experiences these observable states. There's no evidence these observable states become measured states if conscious observers aren't there to experience it.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
A way of relating to this is that just as we only see with the naked eye "visible light". We as well observe some spectrum of matter while the rest is hidden to the 5 senses.

With respect to the 5 senses their input generates an internal representation of what reality is. And thankfully we have developed a means to explore that environment to the extent we have today.

One can argue that what we observe with the five senses is a god enough representation of reality that has allowed us to reach this point, due to an inherent order that as of yet has escaped physical observation.

Decoherence only changes the inherent relationship between the states of an entangled system.




edit on 10-6-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
Just another decimal point beyond? the last and the last decimal point.
If you measure a quantum object, you might find it in a particular state. But it makes no sense to ask if it was in that state before you looked. It's but another tree that fell while nobody heard it, therefore never made a sound, which it obviously did.


Sadly that doesn't work in QM.

The eigen function/value needs to be -1 for dechorence to occur ( +1 is coherence/stability). I can do the maths behind it but have absolutely no idea what it means, that stuff is far too complex for me.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



We do it all the time. In the double slit experiment, WHICH PATH INFORMATION doesn't exist until it's measured.


Obviously we do not know which path a particle takes if we do not measure it. I have a very limited understanding of Quantum Mechanics—I imagine way less than you—but even I know that because we do not know which path a particle takes, does not mean the particle does not exist.


So what we call the universe or what we call reality doesn't exist until an conscious observer creates it. THE OBSERVERS CHOICE CREATES REALITY.


Absolutely false. One cannot be conscious of something if there is nothing to be conscious of. Try it. You're a conscious observer. Think a new fish into existence. Think a new tree into existence. Be sure to post your findings.


There's growing evidence that the wave function is a non physical reality.

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


Growing evidence...how many times have you posted that same one paper. It hasn't grown since the last time you posted it.

Of course it is real. Here it is: Ψ. There's your magical non-physical wave-function.


Again, you guys keep talking like, "How can he ask that question." But you don't offer any evidence just messages of incredulity that someone can even say these things.

This is how you know you're debating belief not science. There's no evidence that the universe exists independent of conscious observers. EVERY EXPERIMENT OCCURS BECAUSE A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER MADE THE CHOICE TO CARRY OUT THAT EXPERIMENT.


I don't care how you can ask the question. What I care about are your arguments. They are non-sequiturs connected by nothing but silly string. As for your "evidence", it's a few cherry-picked papers, of which I'm sure you do not understand the data. You'll post what you favour but not what you don't. Further, you're blaming people ("materialists") for not being able to do the impossible—providing evidence before they exist, or providing evidence from when they are unconscious.

How about we check your theory by experimentation rather than dogma? As conscious observer, create a new fish into existence. Take as much time as you need.

You think some conscious observer existed before reality. But your logic requires that this conscious observer must also have been created by a conscious observer, and so on to infinity. In other words, your theory is groundless. It's turtles all the way down.


What we call reality or the universe is just an approximation of measurements of observable states encoded on a non physical wave function. Consciousness experiences these observable states. There's no evidence these observable states become measured states if conscious observers aren't there to experience it.


Experience what? According to your backwards logic remember, there is nothing there to experience or become conscious of.

Again, explain to me how you can become conscious of an apple if there is not first an apple there to be conscious of, and I will agree with you.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Absolutely false. One cannot be conscious of something if there is nothing to be conscious of. Try it. You're a conscious observer. Think a new fish into existence. Think a new tree into existence. Be sure to post your findings.


i very strongly second this motion. according to your posts, neoholographic, this little experiment should be a simple exercise. ergo no excuses should be necessary, no reasons why you cant do it. except that its impossible. but it shouldnt be, not according to you. so lets see you do it. and dont forget to post the results.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LM perhaps you should read up on the Measurement Problem in relation to the Double Split Experiment and get back to us.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




i very strongly second this motion. according to your posts, neoholographic, this little experiment should be a simple exercise. ergo no excuses should be necessary, no reasons why you cant do it. except that its impossible. but it shouldnt be, not according to you. so lets see you do it. and dont forget to post the results.


A conscious observer could materialise a programmed material reality without it having to mean that he actually controls it or is not bound by rules of that reality.





edit on 10-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: TzarChasm




i very strongly second this motion. according to your posts, neoholographic, this little experiment should be a simple exercise. ergo no excuses should be necessary, no reasons why you cant do it. except that its impossible. but it shouldnt be, not according to you. so lets see you do it. and dont forget to post the results.


A conscious observer could materialise a programmed material reality without it having to mean that he actually controls it or is not bound by rules of that reality.



that qualifies as "an excuse".



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The Measurement problem is the proverbial 7 foot tall gorilla in the room.

LM's apple in example.

And all one has to do is repeat the experiment to observe it.

Any thoughts?
edit on 10-6-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't have to make an excuse for something that wasn't claimed. It is your interpretation that is the problem. Its because you do not see the bigger picture. Again noone is saying that we can control reality and matter directly.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Any chance that if the cat in the box with the probability of being discovered as dead or alive upon opening the box could be tested in the following experiment to come up with both results? ;

The box containing the cat is in another room with no windows to even view into the room from an ajacent room.

Person A goes into the room after the hour or waiting and opens the lid of the box to see either a live cat or a dead cat.

Person A then closes the lid regardless of the outcome and exits the room.

Person B then enters the room to see the results of the experiment without consulting or even seeing Person A as Person A leaves.

Would or could Person A's data be different then Person B's?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't have to make an excuse for something that wasn't claimed. It is your interpretation that is the problem. Its because you do not see the bigger picture. Again noone is saying that we can control reality and matter directly.



you are sort of right, my interpretation is a problem with your "theory" (if you can really call it a problem) because i dont feel the need to keep making wiggle room to make up for what your theories lack in substance. what you said was...


A conscious observer could materialise a programmed material reality without it having to mean that he actually controls it or is not bound by rules of that reality.


what you basically did was arrange the hypothetical so that it couldnt be tested. which makes your theory...well, not a theory at all. because theories are supposed to be tested. and if you cant test it, then no cigar. so in all actuality, that is the problem with your theory.

bigger picture or no, this is science.

IF you want us to take you seriously, then devise a means of testing these hypotheses and post both the experiments and the results. if this cannot be accomplished then there is no need to discuss these things as though they were even remotely plausible.
edit on 10-6-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




what you basically did was arrange the hypothetical so that it couldnt be tested.


What tested?

What you want tested is something that he didnt claim. I just told you so. He said material reality is not there without a conscious observer. He did not say or even imply that he can create objects at will while he is experiencing reality.

Again, this is your shortsighted interpretation of his words.




IF you want us to take you seriously, then devise a means of testing these hypotheses and post both the experiments and the results.


Really, we have been discussing the experiment in the other thread for days. You know, the one where the actual conductor of the experiment said the same thing.

You just can't compute can you?

I find the guy with credentials and first hand knowledge a bit more credible than you guys.
edit on 10-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: HotMale


What you want tested is something that he didnt claim. I just told you so. He said material reality is not there without a conscious observer. He did not say or even imply that he can create objects at will while he is experiencing reality.


the universe existed for approximately 2.5 billion years before non sentient life first developed. are you saying those 2.5 billion years are a fiction? or did they take place somewhere other than "material reality"? (implying there is any other kind)


Really, we have been discussing the experiment in the other thread for days. You know, the one where the actual conductor of the experiment said the same thing.

You just can't compute can you?

I find the guy with credentials and first hand knowledge a bit more credible than you guys.


the experiment proved nothing except that we have a lot more research to do before jumping prematurely to sentimental superstitious tripe.

and im really (not) inclined to take insult from all that huffing and puffing, mr anonymous person on a conspiracy forum. please, explain to us again how credible YOU are.


edit on 10-6-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




the universe existed for approximately 2.5 billion years before non sentient life first developed. are you saying those 2.5 billion years are a fiction? or did they take place somewhere other than "material reality"? (implying there is any other kind)


Oh we are not talking about how you want him to prove claims he didn't make anymore?

To answer, if this reality is a program any feature in it is a part of the program.



forum. please, explain to us again how credible YOU are.


In principle, equally credible as you, except if I have to choose between a guy with credentials and you, then I am inclined to favor him.

Especially if I agree with him myself.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HotMale

That is not how science works.

Agreeing with what another person thinks is irrelevant the issue is the data and why its interpretation is correct.


The problem is when we start addressing issues in some absolute way. When in reality and given humans survive another billion years?

What they would understand looks at what we understand today as relevant in their development. But otherwise they could be issues children learn about in Kindergarten a billion years from now.


edit on 10-6-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It is possible that the wave aspect of matter is subject to order as a result of Chaos Theory.

Or perhaps I am really speaking about its function?

Either way that something experiences Decoherence does not in perpetuity necessarily mean it is destroyed.

Simply stated something changed in an entangled quantum system.
edit on 10-6-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join