the fabric of reality
After having read several intruiging books about quantum physics and pondering the philosophical and spiritual implications of it all, I feel none the wiser. This seems about right given the topic as most folks don't grasp any of it after studying it for decades. Still, there are some aspects that I could use some reflections on by other folks. The technicalities of quantum mechanics are out of my reach anyways, but doubts are raised on the "fabric of reality" as we perceive it. I am not so keen on debating the Copenhagen interpretation, but to look at the spiritual meaning of it all. This invites the big topic Consciousness into the room. Let's start to ponder...
The double slit experiment:
Ok, everyone knows this one. Wave-particle duality. The observer collapses the wave function. So I, the observer, determine the actual reality as it is chosen out of the probability wave. If I don't look, no outcome for the quantum has been determined. Cool, I am pretty important to my own reality.
Question 1:
I understand this only works at the quantum level and by the time we are looking at an entire chair, the joint probability of all its quanta being somewhere/somewhat else is negligable. What is the fundamental difference though? What determine the shape of the chair in the first place? How come it is forming an object I can sit on if in reality there is only a probability of this happening? What governs this macro composition? Is this still me?
Question 2:
If I look at a particle and someone else looks at the particle, do we collapse its wave function in the same state? Or even at the same time? Can I "see" one state and another person another state simultaneously? If so, is this a parallel universe? In that case, how could we ever agree on one reality? Or is my viewing another person just more wave functions collapsing into my reality and they really do not have inherent nature? I think this is Schroedinger's cat and Wigner's friend.
Emptiness:
Not directly a quantum topic, but still interesting. Let's start thinking that we are made out of molecules, which are made out of atoms, which are made out of electrons, protons and neutrons. Although objects (also my body) appear solid, there is way more emptiness between atoms in a molecule than actual matter. If I inflate the size of the neutron to a basketball, the next electron would spin around it in about 8 miles distance. In between: emptiness. Also there is no clear boundary between where my hand stops and where the table starts. We cannot say "this atom or particle belongs to body and that one is the table".
Question 1:
Given this view of reality, what determines the "I" in my preception of reality? It seems clear that it cannot be physical. So is it Consciousness? If so how does "my" Consciousness arise and what does it include? Where do I begin and end? Is this purely in mind or is it beyond mind that the "I" might exist? Does an "I" even exist at all?
This is is for this post, next time we can ponder Superposition and Entanglement/Non-locality...
The double slit experiment:
Ok, everyone knows this one. Wave-particle duality. The observer collapses the wave function. So I, the observer, determine the actual reality as it is chosen out of the probability wave. If I don't look, no outcome for the quantum has been determined. Cool, I am pretty important to my own reality.
Question 1:
I understand this only works at the quantum level and by the time we are looking at an entire chair, the joint probability of all its quanta being somewhere/somewhat else is negligable. What is the fundamental difference though? What determine the shape of the chair in the first place? How come it is forming an object I can sit on if in reality there is only a probability of this happening? What governs this macro composition? Is this still me?
Question 2:
If I look at a particle and someone else looks at the particle, do we collapse its wave function in the same state? Or even at the same time? Can I "see" one state and another person another state simultaneously? If so, is this a parallel universe? In that case, how could we ever agree on one reality? Or is my viewing another person just more wave functions collapsing into my reality and they really do not have inherent nature? I think this is Schroedinger's cat and Wigner's friend.
Emptiness:
Not directly a quantum topic, but still interesting. Let's start thinking that we are made out of molecules, which are made out of atoms, which are made out of electrons, protons and neutrons. Although objects (also my body) appear solid, there is way more emptiness between atoms in a molecule than actual matter. If I inflate the size of the neutron to a basketball, the next electron would spin around it in about 8 miles distance. In between: emptiness. Also there is no clear boundary between where my hand stops and where the table starts. We cannot say "this atom or particle belongs to body and that one is the table".
Question 1:
Given this view of reality, what determines the "I" in my preception of reality? It seems clear that it cannot be physical. So is it Consciousness? If so how does "my" Consciousness arise and what does it include? Where do I begin and end? Is this purely in mind or is it beyond mind that the "I" might exist? Does an "I" even exist at all?
This is is for this post, next time we can ponder Superposition and Entanglement/Non-locality...
The Double Slit Experiment
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics does not support your conclusions.
It’s not you or your friend who force the collapse of the wave function just by observing. The wave function collapses whenever certain conditions are met, independent if someone watches or not. For example, in the Double Slit Experiment the wave function will collapse if the temperature increases, e.g. if you switch on the heater. I.e. you have no impact on reality just by looking – you have to do something! But this applies in the same way for the quantum- as for the macro-level!
Note: If the quantum guys use the term “observe” this comprises the set-up of a high-tech test infrastructure, including equipment for low temperature, high vacuum, emitters of particles, accelerators, detectors and computers with very sophisticated software to translate the output of the detectors to something the human can “observe”. I.e. it’s the overall test equipment which interacts with a quantum particle not so much the observer.
Your Question 1:
As stated before you may govern the transition from quantum- to macro-level (i.e. force the collapse of the wave function) in a very specific experiment for tiny particles. This is called: Decoherence. In the real world decoherence arises from the unavoidable interaction of quantum particles / systems with their natural environment. I.e. if you refer to matter, quantum particles are the exception (even if they are very important in our technical world, e.g. laser) but in our normal world (e.g. chair) matter is decoherent.
Your question: What governs the macro composition? Sure not you or me, but as a matter of fact the macro composition is governed by a set of laws of quantum mechanics (e.g. Pauli Exclusion Principle, discrete energy levels, …). These principles and laws allow to explain the structure of (decoherent) matter, i.e. of atoms, molecules, crystals, cells. Sure it does not explain life.
Your Question 2:
As explained before, just looking has no impact on anything. – Another question is: What happens with the infinite possibilities of eigenvalues of the wave function if the wave function collapses. The idea that each of these possibilities exists in another world (multi world theory) is somehow weird and seems to be no longer in the mainstream of interpretations.
It seems that Schrödinger’s Cat will not be killed but live forever. This thought experiment was introduced 1935 by Schrödinger in his discussion with Einstein. Up to now a lot of interesting interpretations have been presented. The one I think is most reasonable just states that the cat is never coherent with the radiation triggering the killing machine. Thus the cat is dead or alive – you just don’t know before opening the box. Opening the box does not change anything. Again decoherence is the most important issue at the border between the “quantum world” and the “real world”.
Regarding the double-slit experiment:
ReplyDeleteFrome "the destruction or reality" (http://www.boogieonline.com/seeking) I quote supporting your point of the experimental setup being important as well:
"If an experiment is designed to look for waves, it will find waves, and no particles. If it is designed to look for particles, it will find particles, and no waves. No experiment can be designed to detect both waves and particles simultaneously. So Which Is It?"
I think the key here is:
"If things aren't simply particles, aren't simply waves, and aren't both particles and waves, what are they? "Particle" and "wave" are not aspects of reality, but mental tools to help us describe certain types of behavior. Things aren't particles or waves; we don't know what they are, but we can design experiments such that they behave either as particles, or as waves."
So neither particle nor wave express reality, they are just attempts by mind to grasp at reality.
Also, it seems if the measurement apparatus determines the state of matter, then it would be matter determining matter, which is entirely following a materialist view. This is the point where I struggle. The idealist view points out that mind has control over matter. Consciousness determines matter. In that sense, I was thinking that only Consciousness could collapse the function.
From the same source I quote:
"The Copenhagen view says that the wave equation gives probabilities of finding a particle in a certain state when it is measured. When the particle is not being measured however, it exists in all possible states, in what is called "superposition." When a measurement is made, the superposition of the wave function "collapses" into one state.
What is so special about measurement? In the Copenhagen view, the special part is consciousness. Consciousness is assumed to be the mechanism of collapse. When a human being isn't looking, the world exists in many states; when a human being looks, the world exists in only one state."
To be honest I am not sure I fully follow my own argument here, but I am deeply intrigued by the mind-created universe aspect...
Your quotes from "The destruction of reality" (http://www.boogieonline.com) are very helpful to state:
ReplyDelete1. matter is not particles
2. matter is not waves therefore
3. we do not know what matter is and therefore
4. we do not know what the fabric of reality is
As there are interpretations of interpretations of the Copenhagen Interpretation it seems that everybody is allowed to add his own interpretation. However this is not very helpful because we loose the opportunity to discuss our ideas in a common context. So please, can you give me the source which supports your statement:
What is so special about measurement? In the Copenhagen view, the special part is consciousness. Consciousness is assumed to be the mechanism of collapse.
I really can accept that my consciousness creates my universe, i.e. my brain designs my specific universe from the fabric of reality (which we do not know what it is, see above). But my consciousness does not create the fabric itself, e.g. just by watching.