It's a WAVE!

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, we don't know the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because we don't know how to prove that with experiments, but we do know that a so-called 'observation' of a quantum system doesn't need to be made by a conscious observer because we can prove that much with experiments.

Actually some of us do know the correct interpretation, it is in our faces.

Then go get your results peer reviewed, your data replicated and collect your Nobel prize.

a reply to: GetHyped

Anything of substance to add to the discussion or just passing through?

The results are already there in every advanced quantum experiment, most just lack the vision to see the implications.

I am sure there are people more deserving of recognition in this field, but thanks for considering me.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And making baseless unsubstantiated claims is somehow contributing to the discussion, is it?

a reply to: GetHyped

I didn't make any baseless claims, all these experiments prove that it is the availability of info that matters. Are you saying this is not true?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Please qoute the experiment in which it is proven that it is not the availability of info to the conscious observer that is the key factor.

The information is encoded into a form where it's not available to a conscious observer in Eichmann et al., 1993; Dürr et al., 1998, but the same effect occurs as if the information was available to a conscious observer, meaning the conscious observer is not relevant.

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

3. Existing evidence
The experimental results necessary to falsify the pre-
dictions 1 and 2 already exist. First, as described by
Mandel (1999) and Zeilinger (1999a), in experiments
similar to that proposed here, if “which-path” informa-
tion was in principle obtainable, then even though no
actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e.,
to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus,
the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.
In other set of experiments (Eichmann et al., 1993; Dürr
et al., 1998), “which-path” information was measured
but was not recorded by any macroscopic device (for
example, this information was stored only in the state
of single atom or photon) and, therefore, was not ac-
cessible to a conscious observer. Under such condition,
also no interference pattern was found. Therefore, the
existing evidence indicates that the second prediction is
also false.
To the best of our knowledge, no direct attempt was
made to test the third prediction. However, the expecta-
tions for this experiment are clearly set by the evidence
related to predictions 1 and 2. That is, if no interference
pattern was obtained when the “which-path” informa-
tion was not fed into the eye of the observer (e.g., car-
ried by the idler photon as illustrated in Fig.1), the same
is expected to occur if the photon reached the observer’s
retina but the person was distracted as not to be able to
detect the event.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You can keep propping that up but I already explained you how it is incorrect.

The experimental results necessary to falsify the pre- dictions 1 and 2 already exist. First, as described by Mandel (1999) and Zeilinger (1999a), in experiments similar to that proposed here, if “which-path” informa- tion was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e., to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus, the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.

No it is not false they just don't get it. They said it themselves, availabilty of which path info is what matters. So to what does it matter? What would be potentially using that information? The only thing that would be using the info is the conscious observer.

In other set of experiments (Eichmann et al., 1993; Dürr et al., 1998), “which-path” information was measured but was not recorded by any macroscopic device (for example, this information was stored only in the state of single atom or photon) and, therefore, was not ac- cessible to a conscious observer. Under such condition, also no interference pattern was found. Therefore, the existing evidence indicates that the second prediction is also false.

Like I said, this is a misrepresentation and interpretation of these experiments. Here is another source describing them,

www2.ph.ed.ac.uk...

Eichmann et al (Phys.Rev.Lett, 1993) set up a ‘two slit’ experiment using photon with lead atoms as the scatterers. With careful choice of energy, he was able to arrange that the scattering event changed the internal electronic state of the atom: a process which requires negligible momentum transfer but would allow subsequent measurement of the atomic state and determination which way the particle went. As a consequence, the interference fringes vanish.

Here, describing the same expected result, availabilty of which path info destroys interference.

Durr et al (Nature, 1998) used a standing light wave to scatter rubidium atoms. Added to this was a microwave source which changed the hyperfine state of the atoms at one of the “slits”, which could in principle be measured but supplies negligible momentum. The interference pattern disappeared.

The same thing, availability of info destroys the interference pattern.

And the commentary,

Again, quantum mechanics has been shown to give a correct description: non-identical wavefunc- tions do not interfere even if they describe the same particle! It does not matter whether the measurement of the internal states is actually performed: the mere fact that it could be is enough to destroy the interference

Again, the same thing I have been saying, the availability of which path info is what matters.

So to what mechanism does it matter if info is available? Who or what would be using this info but the conscious observer?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
So to what mechanism does it matter if info is available? Who or what would be using this info but the conscious observer?

Nobody will be using it if a conscious observer never observes it. The mechanism matters because it's presumed if it's printed out on a sheet of paper and handed to you that you can read it, but if it's stored in some form beyond your perception abilities and you never see it that's a different situation where it's not really available to the human conscious observer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


You are evading the actual question.

Experiment after experiment concludes that the availability of "which path" is the factor that makes the interference pattern collapse.

The implication is that there has to be something involved in the experiment to which this info would matter. So do you have another candidate besides the one that is in your face?

Or are you still not able to compute this implcation and you have been stuck in the same position of denial for years, even though you know that there must be a hidden mechanism to explain all the quantum weirdness.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

So basically your belief not backed by the science trumps the science, except you wish to frame this belief as if the science.

If your circular reasoning works for you, great, but you're not making any sense. No reason to bother with someone who refuses to be reasonable.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Anything of substance to add?

Funny how noone actually wants to respond to what I have said multiple times now.

So, availability of which path info is not the key factor in these experiments? Since you seem to know what you are talking about you should have no problem answering this.

but you're not making any sense

Because you are not able to compute, obviously. So if you want to at least make an attempt at debunking what I am saying then you have to respond to the claim about availability of which path info, instead of spouting empty drivel.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Anything of substance to add?

Funny how noone actually wants to respond to what I have said multiple times now.

Heed your own advice.

Instead of making grand claims on the internet and belittling comments to other users, how about you go get your results published, your data and methodology replicated by the scientific community and collect your Nobel prize?

Or are you instead going to keep repeating your claims with nothing to show for them?

So are any of you loudmouths going to refute that availability of which path info, is causing the wave collapse in these experiments?

I figured that with all that confidence you would have already said something that actually debunks what I said. What are you waiting for?

a reply to: GetHyped

Again you have nothing of substance to add regarding the experiments. I am pretty sure you haven't even got a freaking clue about Quantum experiments.


One more time, is availability of which path info the key factor, or not? It is a simple question for anyone who has any knowledge about these experiments.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Quit trying to pass the buck. I'm not the one making the claim, you are. You clearly stated:

Actually some of us do know the correct interpretation

.

You made the claim, you provide the substance.

a reply to: GetHyped

I already did, the fact that you don't recognise it after I have said 5 times already is telling.

I am saying that it is the availability of which path info that is causing the wave collapse. This is the first part of my claim. Before we go further you need to either acknowledge this or debunk it.

Now is it or is it not? Again, the answer is easy if you know anything about Quantum experiments. Waiting.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

I know what you think you've posted, but you've posted nothing of the sort. You've latched on to an idea you personally find philosophically pleasing and empirical evidence be damned. This is an utterly pointless discussion as you're just another in a long list of armchair internet scientists who make bold claims on a conspiracy website without posting anything credible to substantiate them (and conveniently ignoring any evidence that runs contrary to your expectations of how you want the universe to behave).

a reply to: GetHyped

Like I said you haven't got a single clue of what I am talking about. What is stopping you from actually discussing these experiments?

If you cannot answer the question then you shouldn't even be talking to me about the posts I made.

Anyone else?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Anything of substance to add?

Funny how noone actually wants to respond to what I have said multiple times now.

So, availability of which path info is not the key factor in these experiments? Since you seem to know what you are talking about you should have no problem answering this.

What does this precisely mean "availabilty of which path info" in physics?

"availability" is a vague weasel word in this case. More carefully stated, it means that certain physical apparatus was set up in a way to be able to gather observations through quantum mechanical interactions.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, we don't know the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because we don't know how to prove that with experiments, but we do know that a so-called 'observation' of a quantum system doesn't need to be made by a conscious observer because we can prove that much with experiments.

Actually some of us do know the correct interpretation, it is in our faces. The missing mechanism you agree must exist it is right there. The only thing connecting these events is the conscious observer.

Ah, reruns are on syndication again on the Cartoon Physics Channel.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

"availability" is a vague weasel word in this case. More carefully stated, it means that certain physical apparatus was set up in a way to be able to gather observations through quantum mechanical interactions.

More empty words.

Any thoughts on my earier post in which I actually used a source to make my point?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or do I need to start qouting all of these experiments?