Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

.00000004 second delay seems like an incredably tiny amount time.

Perhaps the information that was changed by the "delayed-choice entanglement swapping" apperatus was still connected for a short period of time and not completely influence the protons if the delay was longer.

What I'm picturing here for this idea is a lightning bolt. 1 lead of a lightning strike may hit a tall tree first, then shortly after another lead hits the ground. As we all have seen a lightning bolt stick around for a few seconds passing electrons around the lightning path.

So my idea here is perhaps there is a residule path behind the particles that still has the ability to pass information for a very short period of time. I would like to see the experiment performed with a much longer delay at the" delayed-choice entanglement swapping" apperatus.

Hi, just want to express my gratitude and thanks for all of the informative posts here. The knowledge base demonstrated in this thread is impressive. While most of the hardcore math and science underlying theoretical quantum mechanics is beyond my understanding, I still thoroughly enjoy the discussion and philosophical nature of the presented theories. Namaste.

reply to post by Tbrooks76

Be careful what you read on quantum mechanics.

I heartily endorse this caution. There's a lot of woo about.

In fact, I agree with nearly everything you say, but you are attributing these tall claims to the wrong people. By and large, they are not made by scientists; they are made by non-scientists speculatively reinterpreting the results of scientific data in books and the media.

No respectable quantum mechanician has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that consciousness moves subatomic particles by the power of pure thought. No-one has ever been able to predict or predetermine the outcome of a wavefunction collapse. It is impossible by definition; the outcome of a quantum event is uncertain until after the fact. This is built into the theory. Quantum mechanics is about uncertainty, not certainty!

The interesting thing is that the theory works. Yes, our 'picture' of an atom is, as you say, very rough, but it gives the right results all the same. One of the early triumphs of quantum mechanics was a theory that explained why the allowed energy states of an electron 'in orbit' around a nucleus have the values they do; from this, it went on to explain a wide range of physical phenomena: how chemistry works, for example, and why molecules take the forms they do. Devices that work according to quantum principles, such as lasers, are all around us nowadays, doing a myriad jobs exactly as designed. This is all solid, real-world stuff. Quantum mechanics works.

It is true that the quantum pioneers of the early twentieth century, amazed at the paradoxes being uncovered by their theory, let their powerful minds run free in trying to interpret what they were learning. Some of their speculations were abstruse, deeply philosophical or even quasi-religious. A few of these great men, in retirement, took their ideas further, sometimes at the risk of their intellectual reputations. However, the modern pseudoscientific cult of quantum woo has little to do with their ideas.

What new age 'quantum physics' boils down to is simply this:

1. There's an uncertainty principle that says things don't always behave the way they're expected to do.
   
   
2. There's an observer effect the says the act of looking at something has an effect on it.
   
   
3. Put these thoughts together, hold your breath and squint hard enough, and anything is possible.

Anything. Any wish, any cure, any fantasy, any miracle. Telepathy, remote viewing, levitation, cancer cures, true love. Why not? 'Quantum physics' says I can!

It's sad and it's silly, but it's not hard to sympathize. In this chilly, uncooperative old world, we must all take what comfort we can find. Superstition is an old, well-loved standby. Yesterday it was spells and spirits, today it's energy states and vibrations. Plus ça change... But don't blame the scientists for that.

reply to post by Astyanax


Agreed,
I did say is was FACT mixed with fiction when you read stuff like this.

reply to post by Astyanax



People who believe quantum particles could be influenced by our conciousness forget, that particles not being measured don`t change their behaviour, although their behaviour is being observed, for example in the flow of light.

It seems, that our physical measurement arrives at a quantum as the information: "I´m particle, not wave".
Or: "Now my velocity is more important than my location."

We can only interfere with this information in matter by measuring and/or some physical changes (for example of the electrical orientation) physicists do at combined particles, especially at one of them so that the other one is showing the same behaviour.

So those claims, we could interact with the information of the quantum world more or in other ways than by measuring and/or some physical work within very narrow possibilities, are simply wrong.


Prof. Anton Zeilinger who developed the quantum-computer stated, that the foundation of matter is information.
And this information doesn`t need time, it stands above time, so is it an own dimension above space and time?
Is that the reason, why at the (in this thread) described experiment the flow of time was weaker than the information, especially because in the quantum-world information rules above space and time?

Originally posted by Screwed

What if the missing link is the fact that this information travels thru an adjoining dimension in order to be able to instantly connect with its entangled partner in distant space?

Yes
YES
&

YES!

So now what?

reply to post by aboriginee

People who believe quantum particles could be influenced by our conciousness forget that particles not being measured don`t change their behaviour, although their behaviour is being observed, for example in the flow of light.

Actually, that isn't correct. People don't see photons, they see the source of the photons.

If you see a 'flow of light', what you are really seeing is a stream of excited atoms returning to their ground states by emitting photons that are falling into your eye. The atoms you 'see' are entangled with these photons. At the point a photon strikes your retina, the wavefunction of the quantum system that includes the atom emitting it and the photon (and you, of course) collapses, giving information about the atom's position. You decode this information as light.

So those claims, we could interact with the information of the quantum world more or in other ways than by measuring and/or some physical work within very narrow possibilities, are simply wrong.

Probably. At any rate, they are not supported either by quantum theory or by experimental observation. Of course, the people who make these claims do not know any quantum theory.

Prof. Anton Zeilinger who developed the quantum-computer stated, that the foundation of matter is information. And this information doesn`t need time, it stands above time.

I've heard such things proposed but I do not believe them. Information doesn't float about, godlike, in some immaterial configuration space. Its existence implies real state changes in some physical medium. Physical state changes imply existence in time.

A few radical physicists believe time doesn't exist, but they certainly haven't made a very strong case for their proposition yet. As for proving it, let's not hold our breaths.

reply to post by Astyanax


First I apologise for not putting citations from you into my text!
I`m brand-new in here, and throughout the last week I didn`t have the time to get into knowledge how to do that.
Impulsive as I am sometimes, I thought this night, ok, I can write that text without citations from other users - but today, intending to write an answer to your post, I would need this knowledge, I`ll do the rest of my homework soon!

It overwelmed me, because this matter is so interesting and exciting!

I didn`t write, we could observe quantum-particles without measuring them.
I wrote we could observe their behaviour.

But that wasn`t quite correct too, because in the double-loop-experiment we can only observe a very little part of the behaviour of photons, more correct, their behaviour`s results - that`s when they impact upon the screen and we can see the light they cause.
By my knowledge that`s the only way we can get that near observation of something quantum particles do without measuring single particles.

But even in this "near to the quantum-world situation" we can change nothing at all only by observation.

So we agree in this points.

That`s a very interesting case with the light. It shows us more of the quantum-world than every other physical occurence, we can experience without measuring particles.
More than any other physical action it`s a quantum-physical appearence.

Is it that, why the velocity of light doesn`t add up with our velocity, even if we move into its direction? It stays the same. Light seems to move through space without being subordinated the physical laws of space in some points.

About time: It doesn`t exist without space. If there`s no space, there`s no time. Time is the consequence of space.

And information manifests synchroniously within quantum-actions.
It always acts without needing time, therefore we can conclude, it doesn`t move through space.
And therefore it is a dimension of its own or exists within a dimension above space and time.

And to invert the point of view: If there existed an intelligent form of live only within the two dimensions of length and width, they wouldn`t realize any pressure being put upon them.
But they could be shaken horizontally by something, that happens within the third dimension. When they then get into knowledge of the existence of a higher dimension, to state length and width don`t exist would be wrong.
So we can`t say space and time don`t exist although we can assume, there is something from a higher dimension acting within our boardered world.

Should we name this dimension godly?
I´m strictly against that, although I believe in god.

Science and theology or believing in god don`t have any slice plane.
We are not able to encompass or measure higher dimensions with natural-scientifical methods, and therefore we can`t proof any statements about them.

So natural-scientists and people who are talking about natural-science shouldn`t use that kind of science to proof the existence of god nor to proof the opposite point of view.

And, by the way, I hope there will never be a proof of the existence of god, because one of the innermost characters of faith are the free will and free decision.

reply to post by aboriginee

I didn`t write, we could observe quantum-particles without measuring them. I wrote we could observe their behaviour. But... in the double-loop-experiment we can only observe a very little part of the behaviour of photons, more correct, their behaviour`s results - that`s when they impact upon the screen and we can see the light they cause. By my knowledge that`s the only way we can get that near observation of something quantum particles do without measuring single particles.

I see English is not your first language, at least when it comes to physics! We call it the 'double-slit experiment'. Yes, you're right, it only shows us what photons do when we're looking at them. The private life of the photon remains private.

All the same, we do know something about it. One of the things we know is that it isn't an actual particle travelling through space the way a bullet does. It makes more sense to imagine it as a kind of cloud. The cloud is actually as big as the universe! However, it is so thin as to be almost nonexistent everywhere except in those places the photon is most likely to be found if we look for it. The instant the photon is detected, the cloud collapses to a point – the point of detection – and the photon seems to be a bullet. Weird, no?

But even in this "near to the quantum-world situation" we can change nothing at all only by observation.

Well, that's not quite right, as my explanation shows. We collapse the wavefunction (the cloud) by observing it. The thing is, this has nothing to do with consciousness. We can't control or predict where the photon is found; we can only predict probabilities.

Is it that, why the velocity of light doesn`t add up with our velocity, even if we move into its direction? It stays the same. Light seems to move through space without being subordinated the physical laws of space in some points.

The invariance of the speed of light is a fundamental property of nature. It is assumed in all quantum calculations. I don't know if this answers your question – I found it hard to understand. Perhaps you could clarify it a little?

About time: It doesn`t exist without space. If there`s no space, there`s no time. Time is the consequence of space.

Agreed. But time is experienced through change, so it is also the consequence of the objects that exist in space.

Information manifests synchroniously within quantum-actions. It always acts without needing time, therefore we can conclude, it doesn`t move through space. And therefore it is a dimension of its own or exists within a dimension above space and time.

You're speaking of the consequences of entanglement – 'spooky action at a distance'. This assumes that information is passing from one entangled particle to the other. However, this is not how information normally behaves; it is usually transmitted by material means that obey the laws of classical physics. It seems risky to invoke an extra dimension of spacetime merely to carry quantum information. This kind of speculation takes us beyond the realm of the known; I prefer to leave it to real physicists, who know what they are doing. My knowledge of physics, sadly, does not extend that far.

reply to post by Astyanax

A few radical physicists believe time doesn't exist, but they certainly haven't made a very strong case for their proposition yet. As for proving it, let's not hold our breaths.

Time doesn't exist outside of human perception. It's a concept of human perception. If you have proof that suggest time does exist outside of human perception, please share.

We call it the 'double-slit experiment'. Yes, you're right, it only shows us what photons do when we're looking at them. The private life of the photon remains private.

I don't completely agree. When we don't look directly at a single photon being fired, we know it behaves like a wave because we see the interference pattern on the screen.

Or do you mean that by looking at the screen we are looking at the photon, cause we aren't.

Or do you mean the same thing by this?

All the same, we do know something about it. One of the things we know is that it isn't an actual particle travelling through space the way a bullet does. It makes more sense to imagine it as a kind of cloud. The cloud is actually as big as the universe! However, it is so thin as to be almost nonexistent everywhere except in those places the photon is most likely to be found if we look for it. The instant the photon is detected, the cloud collapses to a point – the point of detection – and the photon seems to be a bullet. Weird, no?

Well, that's not quite right, as my explanation shows. We collapse the wavefunction (the cloud) by observing it. The thing is, this has nothing to do with consciousness. We can't control or predict where the photon is found; we can only predict probabilities.

I feel that the Quanum Eraser exp. and the Delayed Choic QE exp prove that consciousness is definately involved. The availabilty of the Which Path info is what matters. To who or what would that matter, except consciousness?

In the DCQE exp the pattarn on the screen even adapts to what the experimenter knows, changing the result from the past.

Agreed. But time is experienced through change, so it is also the consequence of the objects that exist in space.

There is no time, only events. Time is a concept of human pereception.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

Time doesn't exist outside of human perception. It's a concept of human perception. If you have proof that suggest time does exist outside of human perception, please share.

I will do so gladly, just as soon as you have proved that anything exists outside human perception.

There is no time, only events.

Very well. Define an event without invoking time.

When we don't look directly at a single photon being fired, we know it behaves like a wave because we see the interference pattern on the screen.

Strictly speaking, what we really know is that a 'single photon' leaves a pattern of fringes that looks as if it was created by the interference of waves in a medium. This, of course, begs the question of what a 'single photon' is. Would you care to offer a definition – preferably one that explains why it shouldn't leave fringes?

I feel that the Quanum Eraser exp. and the Delayed Choic QE exp prove that consciousness is definately involved.

I was brought up to respect others' feelings, so if you feel that way I shan't attempt to dissuade you.

reply to post by Astyanax

Strictly speaking, what we really know is that a 'single photon' leaves a pattern of fringes that looks as if it was created by the interference of waves in a medium. This, of course, begs the question of what a 'single photon' is. Would you care to offer a definition – preferably one that explains why it shouldn't leave fringes?

The way these exp. are setup is that they fire a single particle, this is controlled, therefore it shouldn´t create an interference pattern.

I was brought up to respect others' feelings, so if you feel that way I shan't attempt to dissuade you.

Big fat cop out.

I said this,

I feel that the Quanum Eraser exp. and the Delayed Choic QE exp prove that consciousness is definately involved. The availabilty of the Which Path info is what matters. To who or what would that matter, except consciousness? In the DCQE exp the pattern on the screen even adapts to what the experimenter knows, changing the result from the past.

Why not respond to that with substance? I think I know why, you can't. The funny thing is that you actually proved my point already.

I will do so gladly, just as soon as you have proved that anything exists outside human perception.

Agreed buddy. It''s all about consciousness. And when we look at things, we can observe that certain events have happened, but these events themselves have nothing to do with time, and aren't subjected to time, it is merely our human concept that we apply to them.

Please stop with the consciousness thing.

If it was consciousness that affected results, then how come in the double slit experiment we see an inference pattern when we observe the screen when a photon goes through the slit and there is no detector?

According to you, just because we observe the screen, we should not see an inference pattern, because our consciousness would have collapsed the wave function.

But we don't. We clearly see an inference pattern. The only way to change the inference pattern to a non-inference pattern is to put a detector in the experiment. In both cases, WE OBSERVE THE EXPERIMENT.

reply to post by masterp


Still not getting it huh?

If it was consciousness that affected results, then how come in the double slit experiment we see an inference pattern when we observe the screen when a photon goes through the slit and there is no detector?
According to you, just because we observe the screen, we should not see an inference pattern, because our consciousness would have collapsed the wave function.

Where did I say that? You continuously show a lack of comprehension. It is because a SINGLE particle is fired it should be impossible to see an interference or wave pattern. You know what interference is?

The only possible explanation is that the single particle goes through both slits, interferes with itself, and creates an interference pattern. When we observe the screen it has already happened. We were not observing the process, only the result.

If we observe the slit, we make it impossible for the particle to go throught both, cause we know it went through one of them. Only then the interference pattern collapses. And only then were we observing the process.

But we don't. We clearly see an inference pattern. The only way to change the inference pattern to a non-inference pattern is to put a detector in the experiment. In both cases, WE OBSERVE THE EXPERIMENT.

Like I said, we only observe the process when looking at the slit, and then the wave collapses. You are great, you keep debunking yourself.

Please stop with the consciousness thing.

Please stop with the blatant ignorance thing.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by masterp

 

Still not getting it huh?

If it was consciousness that affected results, then how come in the double slit experiment we see an inference pattern when we observe the screen when a photon goes through the slit and there is no detector?
According to you, just because we observe the screen, we should not see an inference pattern, because our consciousness would have collapsed the wave function.

Where did I say that? You continuously show a lack of comprehension. It is because a SINGLE particle is fired it should be impossible to see an interference or wave pattern. You know what interference is?

The only possible explanation is that the single particle goes through both slits, interferes with itself, and creates an interference pattern. When we observe the screen it has already happened. We were not observing the process, only the result.

If we observe the slit, we make it impossible for the particle to go throught both, cause we know it went through one of them. Only then the interference pattern collapses. And only then were we observing the process.

But we don't. We clearly see an inference pattern. The only way to change the inference pattern to a non-inference pattern is to put a detector in the experiment. In both cases, WE OBSERVE THE EXPERIMENT.

Like I said, we only observe the process when looking at the slit, and then the wave collapses. You are great, you keep debunking yourself.

Please stop with the consciousness thing.

Please stop with the blatant ignorance thing.

No, please. In the double slit experiment, WE OBSERVE THE EXPERIMENT THE WHOLE TIME.

We observe both cases: one with no detector, and the other with a detector.

OUR OBSERVATION DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. ONLY THE DETECTOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

EDIT:

In this video of the experiment, we see the interference pattern!

Google Video Link

DURING THE VIDEO RECORDING, BOTH THE EXPERIMENTER AND THE PERSON THAT HANDLES THE VIDEO ARE PRESENT!!!

OUR CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE EXPERIMENT! IF IT DID, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECORD THE FRINGES ON A VIDEO.

I apologize for the caps, but it is ridiculous to claim that our conciousness affects the outcome of quantum experiments, when there are VIDEOS that prove otherwise.

reply to post by masterp


Lol, you just keep on demonstrating your ignorance. This is the classic Young DS experiment. Where a beam of light is used not a single particle. This merely shows the wave/particle duality of light. It doesn't draw any conclusions on why and how that is.

The particles don't get presented with a "choice"'. The experimenters use either one slit, or two slits the light passes through.

They never even use detectors at the slits. You don't even understand this high school physics experiment.

I didn't base my conclusions on this exp.

Like I clearly lined out in my thread.

Read up on Quantum Eraser exp. Read up on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser exp.

I am clearly wasting my time with you, if you can't even comprehend what we are talking about exactly.

Seeing you stumble and fall like this makes me go

Maybe you should watch the Dr Quantum vid I posted in my thread to get an understanding of the basics first.

www.youtube.com...

We can talk implications afterwards.

Consciousness choice does play a huge role in quantum mechanics and that's what these experiments show from the delayed choice experiment, quantum eraser delayed choice experiment and this latest experiment.

The operative word in these experiments is CHOICE.

The Conscious choice of an observer causes a measurement to occur. Whether this choice is delayed or made in the future. This is what these experiments show.

An observer can't control which measurement will occur. Their choice causes a measurement to occur whether it's the choice to measure 1 slit in the double slit experiment or the choice to go to Taco Bell instead of Burger King. These choices cause a measurement to occur. When I went to Taco Bell I saw a high school friend that I haven't seen in awhile but if I would have made the choice to go to Burger King the measurement of me seeing my high school friend wouldn't have occurred.

This is what these experiments are pointing out. It's the choice of the observer that's fundamental and this choice is inherent in information which I believe as do many others that information is the fundamental property of reality. This would be choice 1 or 0.

Which measurement will occur is random but we can make choices that reduce the probability of an event occurring. In the experiment Victor made the choice to entangle the photons which caused them to be correlated in the past.

You can say I'm going to exercise and eat healthy to avoid diabetes. Now you're less likely to get diabetes but there's still a probability greater than 1 that you will develop diabetes.

So CHOICE is key to these experiments. Some athiest who happen to be scientist try to say that the multiverse determines every choice that will be made but that's just nonsense.

Say for instance I take this plate sitting next to me to the kitchen. It breaks on the kitchen floor. The multiverse has nothing to do with my choice to take the plate into the kitchen. My choice is what caused a measurement to occur and the universe to split.

I know why some scientist make this leap. It's because they can't define consciousness so they want to render consciousness powerless by removing choice. It's a silly notion but you do have a small group of scientist who happen to be athiest/agnostic that recognize the power of choice so they try to take away the choice of the observer.

These experiments show that the choice of the observer is supreme therefore Conscious Choice creates reality and observes it.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by scarystuff

 

I made a post in my Quantum experiments thread that speaks about this exactly, a result gotten in the past changing itself to future circumstances after it already happened.

The delayed choice quantum eraser, allows the decision whether to measure or destroy the "which path" information to be delayed until after the entangled particle partner (the one going through the slits) has either interfered with itself or not. Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of causing the outcome of an event after the event has already occurred. In other words, something that happens at time t apparently reaches back to some time t - 1 and acts as a determining causal factor at that earlier time.

Scully and Drühl found that there is no interference pattern when which-path information is obtained, even if this information was obtained without directly observing the original photon, but that if you somehow "erase" the which-path information, an interference pattern is again observed.In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern exists even if the which-path information is erased shortly later in time than the signal photons hit the primary detector.

The non interference pattern is already on the screen before they erase the wich path info, yet when the experimenter checks the screen later, it still shows an interference pattern.

How is that possible? It's only possible because after the fact, the wich path info is not available, so the pattern on the screen adapts to the experimenter not knowing the wich path, even though it was available at the time the particles hit the screen.

The pattern on the screen adapts to human consciousness. How else would you explain it?

edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)

.
To me it seems, that you`ve misunderstood something.
Scully and Drühl observed first, that when the which-path-information is obtained, that there is no interference pattern. And when they erase the which-path-information, the interference pattern, that was there before the which-path information was given by measuring, shows up again - so far nearly similar to the double-slip-experiment.
But in the delayed choise quantum eraser experiment the interference pattern appears, although the particle has been measured. The which-path-information, that simultaniously can be observed on the first detector, will then be erased shortly after that.

However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.

edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)

They are saying that the interference pattern only shows itself after the experimenter knows if the wich path info is available or not, by looking if the idlers were picked up by the detectors that are related to the wich path info not being known in this case.

You have to have an understanding of the setup of the exp to understand this.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why else would it matter what the experimenter knows, if human consciousness is not the deciding factor?

edit on 25-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)

Quite the opposite is being told: The experimenter looks at the measured idler-photons with the which-path-information. Being informed about that they have been detected, he looks at the screen where the interference-pattern shows up simultaniously, although the which-path-information will be erased shortly later, that`s the meaning of the whole experiment!
You should read the article in Wikipedia once more.

reply to post by aboriginee


I have been over this a hundred times already, read my thread. I'm off to bed and had some drinks. I will respond in detail tomorrow I promise, for now I will leave you with this.

Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of causing the outcome of an event after the event has already occurred. In other words, something that happens at time t apparently reaches back to some time t - 1 and acts as a determining causal factor at that earlier time.

What does that tell you?

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

I feel that the Quanum Eraser exp. and the Delayed Choic QE exp prove that consciousness is definately involved. The availabilty of the Which Path info is what matters. To who or what would that matter, except consciousness?

Consciousness or the power of an electromagnetic field. Perhaps a combination of both. Remind yourself what is being used as an observer then take a crack at pilot waves: