Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Perhaps
The title offers what they are for and in so far as Materialism, the question is if in this case, it has been debunked??
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
Actually the first video 7 minutes + is the actual argument and the rest, is in relation to providing "equal time",to either consideration.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.
To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
It means that the Universe can react to an observation if it understands that it is being observed
The whole subject of Measurement Theory, simply evaporates.
Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties, a central concept of quantum mechanics
The basic problem with TEW is that it is undefined and contradictory. Nothing exists to agree with experiment. It’s not really a theory at all. To put it another way: If we found a local explanation of DDC, still TEW would be wrong, still lack any explanatory power.
The most telling flaw is that the physical units of his theory’s fundamental constituent, the elementary wave, is undefined. (Mr. Speicher once claimed it was energy, then refused to discuss it ! )
"Lewis Little was
ultimately forced to admit his theory could not explain the relevant
EPR experiments"
Originally posted by smwoop
reply to post by Kashai
On the other hand, if he can prove his experiment, and give credence to TEW; it would change a ton in the quantum world.
A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s.
Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=–4:36, p=6x10–6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified.
By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.