Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

reply to post by aboriginee


You have again sidestepped the issue at hand here and again failed to give an alternative explanation the bizarre results that are ckleaerly seen as bizarre by the experimenters themselves.

You have, just decribed the experiment again.

Yes, but first of all - I wrote nothing about the very first double-slit experiment, but about the very first double-slit-experiment with single particles!

Ok, that still doesn't matter to the results we are talking about here. What experiment was that, link please.

Reality doesn`t only happen in the way, our every-day-knowledge of physics does. Information between entangled particles, in the experiment the idler- photons and the signal-photons, "travels" without needing time.

Yes, and why, and why does it "travel through time" to always correspond with what the experimenter knows at that time?

I asked for an alternative explanation, not another description, we have already established what happens.

The which-path-info is something, that the photon has got. If it is lead through a defined or special path, the wave-function collapses. If it is measured, the wave-function collapses too. When it has got the which-path-info, it ends to be a wave and starts to be a particle.

So you admit that at least the photon "knows" something. Is this any less weird? The photon knows what we know.

The way you say it is not correct though, we either know the which path info or we don't, we "measure" it by seeing which defined path the idler took and which detector it ended up.

If information within entangled particles doesn`t need time to "travel", it doesn`t matter, weather there something happened in the past or will happen in the future.

Again, this doesn't explain how past result alwys correspond with what the experimenter knows in the present.

Now, please, look at the context this sentence is written in and under what headline it has been placed. Here once more the link to the article in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org... And here the headline of the chapter under which this sentence appears at the end:

Details pertaining to retrocausality in the Kim experiment

And there is something explained as follows: In order to know which signal-photon belongs to which idler-photon the experimenter has to correlate the signal-photons to the idler-photons and therefore he has to look to the idler-photon first. His observation is retroactiv to the direction of time in which things happen at the experiment. That is a problem, if scientists want to use retrocausality.

Yes and, how this debunk my claim or the bizarre result? It is a problem if they want to use retrocausality for technology. It doesn't debunk what I said.

It is exactly what I said, only you can't seem to grasp the implication, even though it has been explained 8 times already.

The signal photon hits the screen before the idler is even detected. So there should be either an interference pattern or a non interference pattern on the screen before the idler has been detected. Actually, there should have been an interference pattern because they hadn't measured yet.

But let's agree that a pattern should be present on the screen before the idler is detected.

Now if they check the idler and the which path info is known, and they check the screen for the entangled signal photon afterwards, there is a non interference pattern.

If they check the idler and the which path info is not known, and they check the screen for the entangled signal photon afterwards, it shows an interference pattern.

This is always the case, how can that be?

You have to agree that one of the patterns should have already been on the screen, before anything was known about the idler.

So why does the result from the past always line up with the info the experimenter has learned after the fact?

It can't be by chance, so what is causing this if it is not our own consciousness? Try answering that question cause it is the only one that matters here.

reply to post by aboriginee

And here is the directly following headline and the text:

The main stumbling block for using retrocausality to communicate information The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light (since one might deduce this information before there had been time for a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would qualify as violations of causality in physics. The apparatus under discussion here could not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens. In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects[5] (see reference [6] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities).

Yes....and?

This is a conclusion based on the experiment regarding the potential use of retrocausality for sending information. It has nothing to do with the factual results in the way my claims do. This piece of text doesn't say anything that debunks my claims about said results.

It also doesn't explain how these weird results happen. All they say is that you can't do it the other way around. You can't look at the screen first and and determine the path of the idler from that before it was detected.

Now that you have qouted the entire paper in order to try and debunk my claim wich has been clearly layed out 9 times by now, maybe you could respond to the issue I am talking about?

It`s about the impossibility of time-travelling within our physica

It doesn't matter what the experiment intended to show, or what specific conclusion was made. The results I base my claim on are real, yet impossible, and I would like it if anyone can directly adress them the next time.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


Now I´m happy that you realized that for the experimenters the meaning of the experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.
And why is it that they first have to look at the idler-photons? It`s because they can`t see at the signal-photons which idler-photon belongs to each of them. (The experiment is arranged like that and it would be very complicated to arrange it otherwise. And even if they would manage that, information towards the experimenter about the signal-photon isn`t able to travel faster than light in our physical reality - and both, idler-photons and signal photons travel at the speed of light.) Therefore the experimenters have to observe retroactively to the direction of time of the experiment, where, although the idler-photons change later in time than the signal-photons, the change is already there at the signal-photons, what should be impossible.

But I have found out something, that debunks both of us.
You - regarding consciousness, and me - when it is about my claim that time doesn`t matter within experiments with entangled particles.

Imagine there were two experimenters, each of them with one particle from a pair of entangled particles standing in more or less distance to each other. The one of them changes something at his particle and simultaniously the other particle changes too.
If then the first experimenter reverses the first change at his particle, the second particle would reverse its first change too simultaniously.
What would happen, if the second experimenter already knew about the reverse, before the first experimenter had initiated it or if both had planned every change? Nothing special, the second experimenter`s particle wouldn`t reverse its first change until the first experimenter does it with his particle. Nothing about consciousness, you`re debunked.

And because changes between entangled particles always happen simultaniously and because the partner-particle never does already the next change before it happens at the first particle - time matters in some way within experiments with entangled particles, I`m debunked too.

What is it then about, that at the experiment we are talking about the whole time, the second particle changes before the first particle, at which the change is done?

Is it because the particles travel at the speed of light? Time stops at the speed of light.

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Text from this link:

The standard equation for "time dilation" is that the time passing on Earth will equal the time on the object * 1/sqrt(1-((v*v)/(c*c))), where v is the velocity of the object and c is the speed of light. At v=c this goes to infinity, or in other words, time would stop for an object moving at the speed of light. This is not a problem because objects can't go at the speed of light -- it would take an infinite amount of energy (and their mass would also become infinite).

It would even stop for us if we travelled at that speed.
So is it therefore, that time doesn`t matter within our experiment?
When the signal-photon hits the screen, the information about the later change of the idler-photon is already available, because time doesn`t move forwards or backwards at the speed of light. What we see happening one after another or one before the other has no time at the speed of light.

reply to post by aboriginee

Now I´m happy that you realized that for the experimenters the meaning of the experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.

Good for you, but what do you mean realized? I never implied that this experiment had the intentions to prove conscioussness.

I specifically lined out what portion I based my claim on, I repeated and explained it ten times. It is not my fault that you keep arguing points that are irrelevant to this specific issue. Don't act like I am back pedaling because of something you said.


Again, nothing you said debunked my claim, and the only thing that was somewhat relevant was this,

When the signal-photon hits the screen, the information about the later change of the idler-photon is already available, because time doesn`t move forwards or backwards at the speed of light. What we see happening one after another or one before the other has no time at the speed of light.

It is not true. When the signal photon hits the screen no info of the idler is available at all.

The results from Kim, et al.[1] have shown that whether the idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4) or a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2) determines whether interference is seen at D0, even though the idler photon is not observed until after the signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter.

So for the tenth time, why does the result on the screen always correspond with what the experimenter has found out about the idler after the pattern should already be on the screen?

It has absolutely nothing to do with lightspeed.

The result adapts to what the experimenter has found out in the present.

And even besides that, the fact that an interference pattern is created because the Which path info is not available is remarkable enough in itself, since the only factor there is if the experimenter can now the path or not.

It is not the "measurement" itself that is causing it, the experiment proves that.

reply to post by aboriginee

Imagine there were two experimenters, each of them with one particle from a pair of entangled particles standing in more or less distance to each other. The one of them changes something at his particle and simultaniously the other particle changes too. If then the first experimenter reverses the first change at his particle, the second particle would reverse its first change too simultaniously. What would happen, if the second experimenter already knew about the reverse, before the first experimenter had initiated it or if both had planned every change? Nothing special, the second experimenter`s particle wouldn`t reverse its first change until the first experimenter does it with his particle. Nothing about consciousness, you`re debunked.

I'm debunked? I didn't make any specific claims about entanglement. And you didn't explain entanglement so I don't know how you "debunked" anything.

Also your hypothetical exp. doesn't make sense at all.

What would happen, if the second experimenter already knew about the reverse, before the first experimenter had initiated it or if both had planned every change? Nothing special, the second experimenter`s particle wouldn`t reverse its first change until the first experimenter does it with his particle.

How could the 2nd experimenter know about the reverse beforehand? Off course nothing would happen, cause nothing happened with the first partner yet. And if they planned it they both would know the state of the particle.

You are obviously just speculating there, and it doesn't make sense.

reply to post by aboriginee

What is it then about, that at the experiment we are talking about the whole time, the second particle changes before the first particle, at which the change is done? Is it because the particles travel at the speed of light? Time stops at the speed of light.

If you believe that changes in entangled particle states are anything but instantaneous, you have understood the experiment wrong. Change any physical attribute of an entangled particle and the corresponding attribute of its entangled partner changes immediately. Obviously, this will not be noticed until a measurement of the second particle is taken, but that doesn't change the theory.

At what point, in any of the experiments discussed, do you think one entangled particle changes state before or after its partner?

reply to post by Astyanax


en.wikipedia.org...

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 information to change was given to the signal-photon by the change at the entangled idler-photon later in time. The signal-photon changed before the idler-photon gave the information, it didn`t happen simultaniously.

By the way, particles don`t know anything, they only react to informations being given to them.
When I write: ...the paricle knows..., I should better write it like this: ...the particle "knows"... - a common statement of me, that I`ve wanted give now.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Cecilofs

 

That's all right. You wish to believe in certain phenomena, so you look for evidence of them, and you find it. The evidence may not be scientifically tenable, but it is always possible that the scientific approach is wrong, or based on a misapprehension. Perhaps the scientific approach is intrinsically blind to the phenomena you want to believe in. Well, yes, that could be true. And if you want to believe it is, there is no-one to stop you. Certainly not I.

If we are now agreed that these quantum results do not imply a role for consciousness in determining the outcome of the experiment, there is no further argument between us.

No there is no argument. I think its an agree to disagree thing.

Just know that it works both ways - science starts with an assumption then collects data to verify said assumption.

I would like to believe consciousness has an affect, but I admit that this experiment doesn't prove that it does. Likewise it doesn't prove that it doesn't, which you seem to think it does.

Once again, we can't actually distinguish between the machine causing the effect and our consciousness causing the effect. Saying it is one or the other is making an assumption about reality which may not be true.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by aboriginee

 

If you believe that changes in entangled particle states are anything but instantaneous, you have understood the experiment wrong. Change any physical attribute of an entangled particle and the corresponding attribute of its entangled partner changes immediately. Obviously, this will not be noticed until a measurement of the second particle is taken, but that doesn't change the theory.

About the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment being written about in Wikipedia: It`s the first time for scientists, that they can see at a screen, that a photon has changed, (in our time) before the information is given to it by its entangled partner. But they can receive this information only retroactively.
That`s because information never travels faster than light within our physical reality.
Therefore we normally only realize changes at entangled particles, that move at the speed of light, taking place simultaniously within our physical reality.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by aboriginee

 

I'm debunked? I didn't make any specific claims about entanglement. And you didn't explain entanglement so I don't know how you "debunked" anything.

At the experiment written about in Wikipedia the signal-photon and the idler-photon are entangled with each other.

One of these photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), continues to the target detector called D0. The positions where these "signal" photons detected by D0 occur can later be examined to discover if collectively those positions form an interference pattern.

The other entangled photon, referred to as the "idler" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going downwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), is deflected by a prism that sends it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B.

You stated, changes at the entangled signal-photon would happen through the conciousness of the experimenter, and not through information given by the entangled idler-photon going backwards in time.
I never wrote that you would have made specific claims about entanglement but I wrote about another example, where something happens within entangled particles, where the experimenters haven`t already seen what happens in the future, but they know that it will happen.

But that`s the way you use to argument.


post by aboriginee

Now I´m happy that you realized that for the experimenters the meaning of the experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.

Good for you, but what do you mean realized? I never implied that this experiment had the intentions to prove conscioussness.

You wrote earlier in this thread:

Now they don't go as far as saying it is consciousness that is causing this, but hey, they are scientists, they don't dare make that step. When you think about it the only explanation is consciousness.

They don`t dare to say something means it could be that they know it, but they don`t say it, maybe they show it more indirectly.


And when I react to wrong sidesteps of you, you claim, that argument wouldn`t have any meaning regarding your main-argument.

And you didn`t falsify my theory about the speed of light as being the reason for the information going backwards in (our) time. You didn`t even try it. But you keep on claiming, that I wouldn`t give any arguments against your statement of consciousness being the reason.

So now I`ll stop my conversation with you.

reply to post by aboriginee


One last thing I forgot: In regard to the experiment and the fact that the experimenter is mentioned within its describtion at wikipedia, you always asked something like this:

Why do they mention the experimenter, when his knowledge about the idler-photon doesn`t do the change at the signal-photon?

Originally posted by aboriginee

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.

What this really means is that the distance from the source of entangled photons to the screen behind the double slits is made less than the distance from the source to the eraser. One entangled photon strikes the screen, its partner travels (slightly farther, therefore slightly later) through the eraser, which alters its polarity. When the polarising filter – the eraser – is in place across the 'idler' photon's path, its partner is found to produce an interference pattern. If we take the polariser away, the pattern collapses into a scatter of dots.

As far as we observers are concerned, this happens instantaneously. We don't see the interference pattern re-emerging a couple of attoseconds before or after the polariser is introduced into the beam path of the 'idler' photon. Light travels too fast for us to see anything like that. The only way we comprehend 'before' and 'after' is in terms of the relative distance of the screen and the eraser from the source along their respective beam paths. The longer the distance, the longer light must take to travel it. That's all we know.

Therefore, when you say

The information to change was given to the signal-photon by the change at the entangled idler-photon later in time. The signal-photon changed before the idler-photon gave the information, it didn`t happen simultaniously.

you are simply making an assumption. We don't know this. All we know is: put the eraser in, we see an interference pattern; take the eraser out, we see a scatter of dots. If we could slow light down until we could actually perceive the time-lag between one entangled photon striking the screen and its partner striking the eraser, maybe we would see the interference pattern emerge before the polarity information was erased. Then again, maybe we wouldn't.

The experiment referred to in the OP is actually an attempt to see if that really happens. Victor, the entangler, is set up much farther away from the source than Alice or Bob. Thus, the measurement at A or B occurs well before the entanglement at V. What do we see? We see that the earlier measurement at A or B seems to depend on something V did later.

Now that, if true, would be seriously weird. However, it may not be the case. The experimental results can be explained in many different ways. Here are a few of them:

1. Information travelled back in time from Victor to Alice and Bob, changing the photons' spin to match what was done to them later in time (this is your interpretation, I believe);
   
   
2. The information only became specific when somebody looked at the results – before that it was kind of fuzzy and could have had any values at all, but when somebody looked at it, what that person already knew somehow forced the information to have certain values (this seems to be your New Age friend's interpretation);
   
   
3. Only particles that have the right spin states initially are capable of becoming entangled (this seems quite possible to me, though it suggests a hidden variable of some kind and thus goes against quantum dogma);
   
   
4. The probability function, constrained to have certain values at one point in space, automatically and instantaneously acquires different values or value ranges at other points.

The last is the standard quantum interpretation. It is agnostic about what is happening in time.

reply to post by aboriginee

At the experiment written about in Wikipedia the signal-photon and the idler-photon are entangled with each othe

No sh**.

You stated, changes at the entangled signal-photon would happen through the conciousness of the experimenter, and not through information given by the entangled idler-photon going backwards in time. I never wrote that you would have made specific claims about entanglement but I wrote about another example, where something happens within entangled particles, where the experimenters haven`t already seen what happens in the future, but they know that it will happen.

You wrote about a hypothetical experiment that didn't have much to do with the specific issue I was discussing and didn't even make logical sense and said that I was debunked based on that.

The experiment is not about entanglement, they only use it. They don't measure changes, or change either of the photons, to see or know what the other does. Not in the way of entanglement experiments.

They don`t dare to say something means it could be that they know it, but they don`t say it, maybe they show it more indirectly.

Yes I think that they realize that Which path info somehow matters to the experimenter, but they didn't set out to prove consciousness. What is wrong with me saying that. I have been pointing out what part of the exp. I am talking about from the beginning.

And you didn`t falsify my theory about the speed of light as being the reason for the information going backwards in (our) time. You didn`t even try it. But you keep on claiming, that I wouldn`t give any arguments against your statement of consciousness being the reason.

Well, if you could explain. I don't see how this would make the result fit to what the experimenter knows.

One last thing I forgot: In regard to the experiment and the fact that the experimenter is mentioned within its describtion at wikipedia, you always asked something like this: Why do they mention the experimenter, when his knowledge about the idler-photon doesn`t do the change at the signal-photon?

That was in reaction to people claiming that humans were never involved in the process, buddy.

So now I`ll stop my conversation with you.

That's too bad, at least explain your lightspeed theory again.

reply to post by Cecilofs

Once again, we can't actually distinguish between the machine causing the effect and our consciousness causing the effect. Saying it is one or the other is making an assumption about reality which may not be true.

Yes, we can, cause the result is always in line with what the experimenter knows. If it was caused by interference or something or some other unwanted effect from the machinery it could not fit the experimenters' knowledge all the time.

Chance dictates that that is impossible. Can you respond to this? Cause I like to know what you think, since you keep ignoring that.

reply to post by Astyanax

Now that, if true, would be seriously weird. However, it may not be the case. The experimental results can be explained in many different ways. Here are a few of them: Information travelled back in time from Victor to Alice and Bob, changing the photons' spin to match what was done to them later in time (this is your interpretation, I believe); The information only became specific when somebody looked at the results – before that it was kind of fuzzy and could have had any values at all, but when somebody looked at it, what that person already knew somehow forced the information to have certain values (this seems to be your New Age friend's interpretation); Only particles that have the right spin states initially are capable of becoming entangled (this seems quite possible to me, though it suggests a hidden variable of some kind and thus goes against quantum dogma); The probability function, constrained to have certain values at one point in space, automatically and instantaneously acquires different values or value ranges at other points.

What do you mean if true, mutliple experiments have shown virtually the same thing.

And what do you mean would be weird?

It is weird anyway you look at it. All the possible explanations you gave are all weird in itself, and they don't explain why the behavior is so weird, except for one, which is the consciousness explanation.

You know, from your "New Age" friend. Like it's an insult lol. I'll take the New Age, and you can remain in the Dark Age with the rest of the fossils.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreennameYes, we can, cause the result is always in line with what the experimenter knows. If it was caused by interference or something or some other unwanted effect from the machinery it could not fit the experimenters' knowledge all the time.

Chance dictates that that is impossible. Can you respond to this? Cause I like to know what you think, since you keep ignoring that.

On thinking about it more I think you may be right.

When both the machine and scientist "knows" (i.e. it polarises the photon to see which slit it went through) the interference pattern collapses.

When the machine "knows" but the scientist doesn't (the 2nd rotation happens), the interference pattern returns.

Originally posted by scarystuff

Maybe this will lead to some way to predict the future and also to explain how some people say they can already see what is going to happen (although they are mostly wrong).

I bet that quantum stuff has some input into the development of language and communication. You might like the link in my signature. It may be relevant to your interests.

reply to post by Cecilofs

I should have replied yesterday, but I'm afraid I missed your post altogether.

I would like to believe consciousness has an effect [on experimental results], but I admit that this experiment doesn't prove that it does. Likewise it doesn't prove that it doesn't, which you seem to think it does.

No, I don't. This experiment tells us nothing about the role of consciousness in determining material outcomes. That was not what it was set up to do, nor do the results obtained imply anything about it.

I am personally inclined to materialism and empiricism, but am not fool enough to believe that an empirical solution to the hard problem of consciousness is possible – we can't even conceive of an experiment that would help us, let alone set one up.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

I'm afraid I stopped reading your posts a couple of pages ago, though my screen name does tend to jump out at me from some of them. If you really have something to say to me, send a u2u.

reply to post by Astyanax

I'm afraid I stopped reading your posts a couple of pages ago, though my screen name does tend to jump out at me from some of them. If you really have something to say to me, send a u2u.

What kind of logic is that?

No thanks, I really have nothing to say to you personally. I'm just responding to you to refute what you are saying.

And we both know you read every letter of my posts.