New research by physicists from Brown University puts the profound strangeness of quantum mechanics in a nutshell—or, more accurately, in a helium bubble.

Experiments led by Humphrey Maris, professor of physics at Brown, suggest that the quantum state of an electron—the electron's wave function—can be shattered into pieces and those pieces can be trapped in tiny bubbles of liquid helium. To be clear, the researchers are not saying that the electron can be broken apart. Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre.

In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a distinct position in space. Instead, they exist as a wave function, a probability distribution that includes all the possible locations where a particle might be found. Maris and his colleagues are suggesting that parts of that distribution can be separated and cordoned off from each other.

"We are trapping the chance of finding the electron, not pieces of the electron," Maris said. "It's a little like a lottery. When lottery tickets are sold, everyone who buys a ticket gets a piece of paper. So all these people are holding a chance and you can consider that the chances are spread all over the place. But there is only one prize—one electron—and where that prize will go is determined later."

If Maris's interpretation of his experimental findings is correct, it raises profound questions about the measurement process in quantum mechanics. In the traditional formulation of quantum mechanics, when a particle is measured—meaning it is found to be in one particular location—the wave function is said to collapse.

"The experiments we have performed indicate that the mere interaction of an electron with some larger physical system, such as a bath of liquid helium, does not constitute a measurement," Maris said. "The question then is: What does?"

And the fact that the wave function can be split into two or more bubbles is strange as well. If a detector finds the electron in one bubble, what happens to the other bubble?

"It really raises all kinds of interesting questions," Maris said.

The new research is published in the *Journal of Low Temperature Physics*.

**Electron bubbles**

Scientists have wondered for years about the strange behavior of electrons in liquid helium cooled to near absolute zero. When an electron enters the liquid, it repels surrounding helium atoms, forming a bubble in the liquid about 3.6 nanometers across. The size of the bubble is determined by the pressure of the electron pushing against the surface tension of the helium. The strangeness, however, arises in experiments dating back to the 1960s looking at how the bubbles move.

In the experiments, a pulse of electrons enters the top of a helium-filled tube, and a detector registers the electric charge delivered when electron bubbles reach the bottom of the tube. Because the bubbles have a well-defined size, they should all experience the same amount of drag as they move, and should therefore arrive at the detector at the same time. But that's not what happens. Experiments have detected unidentified objects that reach the detector before the normal electron bubbles. Over the years, scientists have cataloged 14 distinct objects of different sizes, all of which seem to move faster than an electron bubble would be expected to move.

"They've been a mystery ever since they were first detected," Maris said. "Nobody has a good explanation."

Several possibilities have been proposed. The unknown objects could be impurities in the helium—charged particles knocked free from the walls of the container. Another possibility is that the objects could be helium ions—helium atoms that have picked up one or more extra electrons, which produce a negative charge at the detector.

But Maris and his colleagues, including Nobel laureate and Brown physicist Leon Cooper, believe a new set of experiments puts those explanations to rest.

**New experiments**

The researchers performed a series of electron bubble mobility experiments with much greater sensitivity than previous efforts. They were able to detect all 14 of the objects from previous work, plus four additional objects that appeared frequently over the course of the experiments. But in addition to those 18 objects that showed up frequently, the study revealed countless additional objects that appeared more rarely.

In effect, Maris says, it appears there aren't just 18 objects, but an effectively infinite number of them, with a "continuous distribution of sizes" up to the size of the normal electron bubble.

"That puts a dagger in the idea that these are impurities or helium ions," Maris said. "It would be hard to imagine that there would be that many impurities, or that many previously unknown helium ions."

The only way the researchers can think of to explain the results is through "fission" of the wave function. In certain situations, the researchers surmise, electron wave functions break apart upon entering the liquid, and pieces of the wave function are caught in separate bubbles. Because the bubbles contain less than the full wave function, they're smaller than normal electron bubbles and therefore move faster.

In their new paper, Maris and his team lay out a mechanism by which fission could happen that is supported by quantum theory and is in good agreement with the experimental results. The mechanism involves a concept in quantum mechanics known as reflection above the barrier.

In the case of electrons and helium, it works like this: When an electron hits the surface of the liquid helium, there's some chance that it will cross into the liquid, and some chance that it will bounce off and carom away. In quantum mechanics, those possibilities are expressed as part of the wave function crossing the barrier, and part of it being reflected. Perhaps the small electron bubbles are formed by the portion of the wave function that goes through the surface. The size of the bubble depends on how much wave function goes through, which would explain the continuous distribution of small electron bubble sizes detected in the experiments.

The idea that part of the wave function is reflected at a barrier is standard quantum mechanics, Cooper said. "I don't think anyone would argue with that," he said. "The non-standard part is that the piece of the wave function that goes through can have a physical effect by influencing the size of the bubble. That is what is radically new here."

Further, the researchers propose what happens after the wave function enters the liquid. It's a bit like putting a droplet of oil in a puddle of water. "Sometime your drop of oil forms one bubble," Maris said, "Sometimes it forms two, sometimes 100."

There are elements within quantum theory that suggest a tendency for the wave function to break up into specific sizes. By Maris's calculations, the specific sizes one might expect to see correspond roughly to the 18 frequently occurring electron bubble sizes.

"We think this offers the best explanation for what we see in the experiments," Maris said. We've got this body of data that goes back 40 years. The experiments are not wrong; they've been done by multiple people. We have a tradition called Occam's razor, where we try to come up with the simplest explanation. This, so far as we can tell, is it."

But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy. For example, it's necessary to assume that the helium does not make a measurement of the actual position of the electron. If it did, any bubble found not to contain the electron would, in theory, simply disappear. And that, Maris says, points to one of the deepest mysteries of quantum theory.

"No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn't sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don't really know."

**Explore further:**
Hunt for an 'unidentified electron object'

## axemaster

## nevermark

The problems with interpreting wave collapse as a fundamental effect (as apposed to a perceived one) are many. Nobody has ever been able to characterize what causes a collapse. Quantum mechanics is not time dependent, but a collapse would imply a one-directional event. A collapse also implies that information has been created, which would violate the conservation of information.

The reason we perceive a collapse is also easy to understand. Take Schrodinger's Cat. A cat is in a box with a particle that has a 50% chance of decaying within a set period of time. If it decays in that set period of time a poison is released which kills the cat. As long as the box is sealed in a way that does not allow any information out, the cat will be in two states. Once the box opens, the observer will see the cat alive or dead, which would appear to be a wave collapse.

Cont.

## nevermark

The first cat will initially be both alive and dead, until the second cat opens that first box. At that point the second cat perceives the wave as having collapsed. But the third cat, outside the second cat's box, is now in a context where the first cat is still alive or dead, and two versions of the second cat have seen it alive and dead. That wave seems to collapse when the third cat opens its box. But this continues for as many nested cat boxes as the experiment uses.

So what is going on? What really happens is that the radioactive decay happens both ways initially (as before), so their are alive and dead cats in superposition in the original box. But when that box is opened this superposition extends to the second cat. That cat will now be in superposition with one seeing an alive cat the other dead cat. Cont...

## nevermark

Note that this is completely deterministic. It has long been known that quantum mechanics can be formulated in a deterministic manner with the many worlds interpretation, which is what I have just described.

This consistently explains why we perceive wave collapses, why no information is actually created by that perceived wave collapse, why waves can be uncollapsed, and all the other many problems with the collapsing wave interpretation.

For some reason, the idea that we are all splitting into different versions of ourselves as we are exposed to multiple versions of particle behavior around us is too much of a leap for many people including many scientists to accept. ...

## nevermark

- end of wall of text -

## tritace

Oct 28, 2014## tritace

Oct 28, 2014## Nik_2213

Is there an appropriate award for such epic understatement ??

## big_hairy_jimbo

I'm still wondering if when one electron enters the helium tube, if it "breaks" up into several bubbles. ie 1 electron creates several bubbles of different size, or 1 electron creates 1 bubble, with the remainder of the wave function reflected. Now if it is reflected, how does that represent itself? If you detected a reflected electron, does the smaller bubble dissapear? I'm lost here. I know it's probabilities. Could this device be a filter to eliminate certain probabilities, yet keep the wave function uncollapsed? What happens if you repeat this experiment with multiple devices, does the electrons wave function come down to one specific result as the others have been filtered out?

## Noumenon

Don't let Stumpy and Otto (sounds like a cartoon show from the '40's), hear this,... they might learn something.

More evidence that 'quantum interaction' does not constitute 'a measurement'. I've been saying this for years. While decoherence is valid as an explanation for loss of quantum behavior, it can not resolve this question.

## johanfprins

Oct 29, 2014## johanfprins

Oct 29, 2014## rgw

## Eikka

Then how do you explain the fact that it has a mass?

## swordsman

## KBK

If we alter the viewing position of the commonality via shift or filtering (resonance etc) we get some portion thereof in either view or energy, as a differential. Neither has changed ...but the differential has changed.

To not mistake the differential encountered as the electron but merely as the differential between the frame and the viewed.

## johanfprins

Einstein already explained this in 1908. An EM wave consists of distributed EM energy where the density is given by the sum of the squares of the electric-and magnetic field vectors. Since energy is mass, this density is dE=d(m*c^2)/dv where v is the volume.

Integrating over this one obtains that the total energy is E=m*c^2. Since the mass and mass-distribution is known, one can also calculate a centre-of-mass. Thus any EM wave has a centre-of-mass and when its mass volume does not spread out, as in the case of a a laser pulse, it moves like a body with mass m having a centre of mass and a momentum p=mc.

The latter can be derived by using the Poynting vector, and it also follows directly from the relativistic equation E^2=(p^2)/(c^2)+(m(0)*c^2)^2 where for light one sets m(0)=0 and E=m*c^2. Similarly for an electron wave, except that in this case m(0) is NOT zero, and the wave moves with a momentum p=mv.

## antialias_physorg

...based on? Everything we know so far speaks against infinities (don't let approximations like 'inifinte densities' in black holes and singularities foll you. They are just that: mathematical approximations)

I find it infintely preferable over the idea of a universe which is out to get you.

## Da Schneib

It appears so, if Maris is correct in his interpretation of the experiment.

Apparently it does. It must according to quantum mechanics.

Remember however that they are not detecting the electrons, or the bubbles, in the body of the liquid helium; they only detect their charge reaching the bottom of the experiment.

contd

## Da Schneib

According to quantum theory, it would have to.

I wasn't quite clear on what you had in mind with "repeat the experiment with multiple devices." If you elaborate a bit I'll try to give more answers, as best I know them or can figure them out.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

Note that it is scientists who devised the above experiments and who are speculating on the meaning of the results. Did they consult with the loonies down the hall? Doubtful. Also note the state of their conclusions.

"It really raises all kinds of interesting questions"

"No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement."

-You, on the other hand, have already answered the questions and decided what constitutes a measurement. Just by thinking REAL hard and reading 'critique of pure reason'. This is unscientific.

When they said philo they did not mean YOUR philo.

## Da Schneib

## TheGhostofOtto1923

You will observe in future developments that it will be scientists who will design the experiments to clarify these issues, and it will be scientists who will interpret the results. Because it is scientists, and only scientists, who are qualified to do these things.

Not poets or landscape painters.

## Da Schneib

## Percival

That would amount to which-way detection, wouldn't it?

Would the partial wavefunction-bubbles disappear?

## Da Schneib

And if the bubbles disappear we'd never know. They're not real "bubbles," remember. It's just an analogy.

## Da Schneib

When we have sufficiently sensitive instruments, we may be able to observe the individual bubbles that represent partial wavefunctions; this may allow us to see them vanish when the electron is detected elsewhere. Or not...

## gralp

## tritace

Oct 29, 2014## pepe2907

Actually the whole QM is pretty much about that - the particles not being solid balls.

But so the QM understanding of the term "particle" never was as something solid, so the statement, that it's a wave and not a particle is kind of meaningless by itself /because the particle is a wave with the exception of specific circumstances of interaction with other particles/.

This experiment seems a little impure to me.

I think I read somewhere that a source of single /or precisely quantifiable/ electron/s was created. So the really interesting to see would be what happens if you send precisely quantifiable number of

## pepe2907

Note: This article: http://arxiv.org/...4394.pdf is one reporting on creation of such a source.

## Da Schneib

Also, you should keep in mind that there are two definitions of mass: inertial and gravitational. As far as we know, these definitions are equivalent; General Relativity theory calls this the "equivalence principle." But we don't actually know for sure that they have the same source. It sure looks like they do, but no one has proven it, and having inertial mass arise from the Higgs and gravitational mass arise from interactions with gravitons is a bit of a puzzle. It raises a question about the fine tuning required to make this so. It is more parsimonious to assume a single origin for both, but it's not certain at this point.

## johanfprins

Oct 30, 2014## johanfprins

Oct 30, 2014## dedereu

This open new ways to test experimently deeply, what is a ,quantum measurement, in particular, when a tiny partial buble is observed, the others made from the same unique electron, must disappear at the same time, given a strange noise, of all collapsing bubles at different places in the liquid helium at the same time..

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Good luck with that.

## johanfprins

Nov 02, 2014## tritace

Nov 02, 2014## johanfprins

Nov 02, 2014## Noumenon

It's not that he was insulting you per se, ....it's just that Insults are a structural part of his theory; in fact a necessity in maintaining the notion that the vast majority of physicists are as categorically wrong as he implies.

## tritace

Nov 02, 2014## Captain Stumpy

that is a personal conjecture made by the author,Kevin Stacey, and in no way constitutes proof of everyone's opinion (or even a majority of the opinions) or that this is even factual

it is called "color" or descriptive writing

don't mistake scientists seeking answers as some sort of evidence for philosophy For once, i am 100% supporting you

this is prins in a nutshell: his acerbic denigration is designed to bolster his faith in himself now that he is considered a crackpot by everyone in physics

it is how he maintains a grip and justifies his pseudoscience

@johanie-boy

he is not anonymous, moron

## nastasi

If we can trap the partially reflected electron wave function and try to detect it after an amount of time couldn't it violate the speed of light destroying simultaneously the bubble that is far away from the detection point ?

## johanfprins

Nov 02, 2014## Noumenon

touché.

Consensus in itself, is not valid evidence, nor the moda operandi in science.

His statement that I quoted was a directed analysis of the experimental facts.

"But it does raise some interesting questions that sit on the border of science and philosophy. For example, it's necessary to assume that the helium does not make a measurement of the actual position of the electron. If it did, any bubble found not to contain the electron would, in theory, simply disappear. And that, Maris says, points to one of the deepest mysteries of quantum theory.....: No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement."

## Captain Stumpy

it is "Modus operandi " a Latin phrase, approximately translated as "method of operation"

and i never said that consensus was MO in science, i was actually stating: the authors statement is not evidence of consensus the statement is an authors interpretation of what is presented, not a "statement of facts" or even a "directed analysis of the experimental facts"

nowhere in that paragraph do i see justification for all physicists to agree on philosophy in science let alone that he is 100% correct in his interpretation of what is presented

in "fact", what you have given as proof is simply a single persons conjecture, much like the personal conjectures of your other scientists

if there were to be a study assessing all of them would there still be general agreement?

likely not

## Noumenon

You are constructing deliberately impossible standards to meet of 100% consensus, so that you can deny anything and everything that way.

For what purpose then? I never made that claim, so why mention it?

## Captain Stumpy

logically, the reciprocal is also true

and i am not an absolutist

i am defending my own POV

and again, there is also ample proof that philosophy is not needed in science by answering:

what does science do?

Science explains reality around us with as much detail as possible

this would include the "why" as much as anything else

asking questions to find out what happened is normally taught starting with: who, what, when, where, why and how

Science answers these questions as best they can with empirical evidence

philo simply adds another undefined and unprovable layer to the mix by causing confusion and showing that answers are subjective to the individual

which is true of philo, not science

therefore it is my contention that philo takes away from science more than it adds to it

it is a negative effect and not needed

## Captain Stumpy

no, i am using argument to show where you are thinking philo instead of science you used the author to contend a point, and then made the assumption: which is a fallacy

his statement is proof only that he interpreted this above material in a specific way

my argument : science is negatively affected by philo, especially the double talk and that philo is not needed

science tries to answer all questions as best as it can with empirical evidence, so that means it is far more effective than thought or speculation

in that manner, I have proven my point by using your own arguments as proof of point, as well as adding in my own

you believe philo is needed, you've only proved that others think like you

but not all do

i say it isn't because science already asks those questions

my point is made

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

For what purpose? Are you the thought police? You don't think I know the difference?

That's what "analysis of the experimental facts" means.

Where have I ever claimed otherwise? Why are you inventing arguments that never existed,... except to make insulting accusations? Are you suggesting I know nothing of science or its mathematical foundations?

## Captain Stumpy

are you illiterate?

or can you not read well?

do i need to use all caps?

i stated above my argument and my points

I have never been absolutist, and likely never will be because my mind follows the evidence, not the interpretations thereof

you are now making claims that seem logical on the face but to anyone reading the above exchange will be completely illogical and blatantly stupid

also a lie

My claim still stands:

you believe philo is needed, you've only proved that others think like you

but not all people do

i say it (philosophy) isn't (needed by science and especially by physics) because science already asks the questions needed

my point is made

which brings up another point Otto made about philo's

you seem to think as long as you can argue your POV, you are not wrong

one more reason to be anti philo

## Captain Stumpy

philo double talk

you said then produced the final paragraph as refute to my point this indicates that you are using it as proof of consensus, or at least proof of factual evidence

which is why it was referenced... unless you were referencing evidence against your own argument, which you should have plainly stated

your argument FOR philo in science is plain to see by your writings, so without clear, concise arguments or explanations that specifically state anything (which is another trademark argument tactic from philo's) then modern convention would assume that your argument is counter to the proposed

thus against mine

## Captain Stumpy

your proposal has been that philo's are needed in science, and your supporting evidence was the quote to which you added the quote, as a bait/troll post Now you are getting off topic with general assertions of idiocy and red herrings to distract from the argument

it is obvious that you will do such, being a philo

when you cannot refute with logic, challenge the definitions of something

then the semantics

your general statements are proven false because science already answer the questions needed to answer reality

philosophy is detrimental to science

and the above is just ONE reason why

## Noumenon

Nope, I never said that philosophy is a prerequisite to science making progress. I said specifically Philosophy of Physics is a valid and useful field pursued by physicists, and that interpretations of physics theories is itself Philosophy of Physics, as anyone can verify by clicking on the above link or by researching the innumerable books written by physicists on the subject.

I give my opinion to which I'm entitled to. You do not argue counter to that specific point but instead imply that because you interpret it as philosophical that it is an invalid point.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

You insist on arguing science in philosophical terms. Your philosophy is derived from the people you cite. Their philosophies are invariably derived from religion and mysticism, specifically 'wrt' the unknowable nature of reality.

THEREFORE it is a valid approach to argue against your notions by discounting their origin. One need not try to wrestle with specifics of noodle soup when the ingredients can be shown to be inedible and the chef unqualified.

IOW it makes no sense to argue nonsense. It only makes sense to discount the source, and to cite experts who have said that it is nonsense.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

"If you trace the roots of all our current philosophies—such as pragmatism, logical positivism, and all the rest of the neo-mystics who announce happily that you cannot prove that you exist—you will find that they all grew out of Kant."

"One of Kant's major goals was to save religion... from the onslaughts of science. His system represents a massive effort to raise the principles of Platonism, in a somewhat altered form, once again to a position of commanding authority over Western culture."

"Plato was more than a Platonist; despite his mysticism, he was also a pagan Greek... The Kantian mysticism, however, suffers from no such pagan restraints. It flows forth triumphantly, sweeping the prostrate human mind before it. Since man can never escape the distorting agents inherent in the structure of his consciousness, says Kant, "things in themselves" are in principle unknowable."

http://aynrandlex...uel.html

## TheGhostofOtto1923

"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the CoPR."

## Captain Stumpy

you did infer that here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt when you said which states that physics cannot supply the why of reality, only the how

so, who then supplies the why?

perhaps your words above can compel some logical answer? so now you've made references that compel one to think you are saying "philosophy is a prerequisite to science making progress" without using the specific term

## Captain Stumpy

your inferences can be just as damning as your direct quotes if taken into context, and can be considered just as viable as a direct quote, if presented correctly, like above there are also plenty of books on Star Trek, to include users manuals for the Enterprise and the Klingon Bird of Prey, but that doesn't mean they are valid texts or science, does it?

no

conjecture is exactly that

and your opinion is proven false with the simple set of facts presented above: science answers reality by answering the fundamental questions to reality

the only way you can get a whole picture is by using provable science, not subjective argument

## Captain Stumpy

you cannot... and THAT right there is the whole thing i am talking about

you cannot discount provable, repeatable empirical evidence and experiments

science provides the background that uses empirical evidence to build upon knowledge in order to walk to the future

philo's subjective BS can be interpreted differently by everyone

therefore there is no possible way for it to be beneficial to science

my case is made and you continue to dig your hole deeper

## Noumenon

Well that was easy to do since I never actually said that ideas are metaphysical, but rather ideas that refer to entities that are.

I've only made reference to specific points of Preeminent Physicists.

Because Eugene Wigner, or Penrose, or Omnes, or d'Espagnat, ...Bohr, ...Heisenberg, ...Schröodinger, ...Pauli, ...Bohm, or ...Kant, ....all of whom you have attempted to discredit by calling them mystics, ....had made statements that Otto interprets as mystical or religious, does not logically render every statement they have ever made or that I have referenced, invalid.

## Noumenon

Patently false. Not a single point I have made makes reference or was derived from anything "mystical" or "religious".

Your personal aversion to, and thus self-inflicted ignorance of philosophy of physics, requires me to respond to ridiculous accusations, mined from the internet, rather then substantive counter arguments.

## Noumenon

I did not make that statement, Otto did. Looks like you'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.

I can not continue to respond to you two dingbats about the validity or relevance of philosophy of physics. Your own aversion to and thus ignorance of it, makes it pointless, vacuous, and lacking in substance. You don't even know who you're arguing with anymore.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

This is why for instance Einstein was angry at penrose. He was using physics and math to justify his mystical fantasies. Just like you. This is because you are ignorant, or willfully ignorant (you did read the 2009 article) of the SOURCE of your 'points'. You cut out Kants reference to soul but keep his consciousness. You keep his reason but discard his faith.

Your philobabble is incomplete without these original, and inseparable, components. A quick search of your sources reveals that they certainly understood this. Especially kant and mr tempelton-winner.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

Am I right?

## Noumenon

I've never implied that "physics can be done by just talking about it", you lying troll. This is why a rational discussion with a clown like you is impossible , you just make up non-sense as you go along.

I've actually studied the mathematical foundation of qm and gr, have you? I don't need to be told how science works or is accomplished by two trolling dingbats who rarely even post on an actual substantive subject in physics.

No one posts more on religion at phys.org than you,... so your objection to my posts on philosophy of physics which actually is relevant is irrational.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

And when you call people names I will respond in kind. Bitch.

## Captain Stumpy

no, you made the comment and inferences that i am quoting above, not Otto

WTF? couch? HA the only "dingbat" is you

i've proven my case fairly well, and all you can do is argue with Otto and make distractions, retractions, philo double talk, red herrings, straw-men and irrelevant posts about couches!

I know WHO, and i remember WHAT, it is YOU, nou, who has failed to keep track of what is going on

my point is, and i will simply copy/paste from the repeated posts above you fail again, nou

you've only proved you are the dingbat not capable of logical thought and response

## Noumenon

It appears like you are responding to Otto. How could one think otherwise?

I am, like what?

What evidence have I discounted? [if you were even responding to me which it appears you were not]

Your above to statements are on par with Otto's lies, in claiming that at the heart of my philo is mystics and religion.

Therefore, I won't be responding to vague anti-philo sweeping generality's. If you have an actual point to make that is ABOUT something, then I may entertain it.

## Captain Stumpy

sorry, that WAS my mistake... i thought that was your post, as i was working on pulling from your post at the time

apologies

i DID screw that up read your own posts

also, i DID quote that above a few times

see and re-read leave otto out of our disagreement...it was simple

you made the allusion that i never said/claimed/alluded to mysticism at all

i simply think philo's are NOT needed in science

now, at one time i actually agreed that they (philos) might be needed for fundamental questions, but now i think otherwise

keep to the points, nou

you are confusing me with Otto

argue Otto's arguments with him

## Noumenon

I don't need to because I wrote them, you need to.... I asked you to tell me where I'm making "assumptions about large numbers of physicists".

So capitalized "not". Are you making an Absolutists pronouncement, a la Otto, our just giving your opinion? Do you acknowledge that many preeminent physicists have in fact written on the subject? Do you acknowledge that interpretations of qm for example is as a matter of indisputable fact by definition, philosophy of physics?

Are you saying that one's philosophical outlook wrt Realism vs Positivism and so core interpretation of qm, does not guide one in hypothesis?

Or, are you just saying a truism no one has ever disagreed with,... that experiment and mathematical formulations of theories are developed by physicists, and not philosophers?

## Eikka

http://en.wikiped..._science

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

Unfortunately, some physicists, not all by any means, remain ignorant of basic philosophical epistemic considerations and fall into metaphysical speculations all the while claiming it's science. For, example, some physicists, not all by any means (hi Stumpy), actually believe that there are 'parallel worlds', or take as a point of departure that the wave-function is a Real entity, and see Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe".....

## Noumenon

This is what Schrödinger thought until H.A. Lorentz schooled him that such a electron "EM wave-packet" could only exist for enough time if it's dimensions are large compared to it's wavelength,..... yet the electron does not vanish into EM radiation when it's confined.

## Noumenon

What do you mean by "morph", why that particular spot and not another that 'matches its boundary conditions',.... and btw the electron confined to an atom does not even match the frequency of the photon (EM wave) that it absorbs,... but instead the difference in allowable electron energy states.

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

If you continue avoiding insults I'll continue talking with you. You're off ignore unless you go back to your old ways. You have made a transition and I am recognizing it. Don't blow it.

You would make me feel much more comfortable if you would tell me you think the Derridistas are crazy. Deconstruct deconstruction.

## Noumenon

But why?

"The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious." - Eugene Wigner

Max Tegmark, .....taking his cue from Hugh Everett in proposing MWI via 'letting the mathematical structure do the interpretations',... attempts to answer Wigner's dilemma, by proposing that in some literal sense, the universe IS mathematics, or rather mathematics IS the universe.

Even worse, ...it is a matter of discovery which mathematical structure IS our world, and that any mathematical structure not applicable in this world, must be realized in other worlds. Tegmark adds the multiverse level, IV.

⇒

## Noumenon

Now, had Max Tegmark the basics of philosophy, in particular epistemology, he would not have needed to speculate so deeply into metaphysics to resolve Wigner's problem,...

Mathematics are a-priori judgments of intuition, in synthesizing and conceptualizing experience. They're a means the mind evolved to order experience. Mathematics/Logic are not discovered, rather they are applied,.. i.e. they're presupposed. So, what this means is that, not only is the usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences, not mysterious,... but rather a foregone conclusion.

## Noumenon

In other words,.... if the elements of logic/mathematics are an a-priori condition for experience to be possible, ... that ('hard-wired') a-priori intellectual faculties determine the form of experience given the nature of mind,... then it follows that elements of logic/mathematics are intrinsic to conceptualizations of reality, ...and so anything but mysterious.

In order for the monkey to be able to experience reality to begin with, his mind orders experience before he is conscious of it, via a-priori judgements of intuition, part of which are elements for which mathematics is derived by a more complex and sophisticated mind. His mind operates on experience it certain evolved ways, and he knows 'innately' that two oranges is more than one.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

Yes, quite, that.

I was unaware of J. Derrida, which is not suprising since he appears to have been a far left marxist. To may knowledge he did not write on epistemology in relation to science (?).

## johanfprins

Correct! Lorentz was correct that a single elctron-wave cannot be a wave-packet. I is not, since when it is movng freely, it is a coherent wave with a SINGLE frequency.

What is amazing about this is that the Copenhagenists are basing their "probability interpretation" (which is clearly Vodoo) by claiming that a free electron is a wave-packet: Even though Lorentz proved that this cannot be the case EVER!

## Noumenon

I should add here that these intuitions above fail to order experience at the qm scale, exposing them as an artificial synthesis that are dependent on mind rather than reality itself.

Even in GR, the failure of absolute simultaneity, absolute space, and absolute time,.... show that these intuitions are an artificial ordering of experience,.. and that they must be redefined and equated to physical systems, a clock and a rod.

## Noumenon

Well, the Copenhagenists, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Jordan,.... did not regard the wave-function as representing a physical wave, so i'm sure this caried over to the Dirac equation. Lorentz show that Schrodibger's idea of a physical electron wavefunction can't be right.

I won't be able to respond further for a while,......

## johanfprins

An atomicaly-sized antenna within the screen, cannot absorb less or more energy than h*f where f is the resonant frequencies of the antenna and the wave. When a continuous laser beam with frequency f (which has more energy than h*f) is used, it will, at each antenna (electronic state in the screen) with which it resonates, disentangle the amount of energy hf, which then morphs to the atomic size of the antenna and thus leave a spot.

If the impinging wave has ONLY energy h*f, it has a probability to resonate with any one of the available electronic antennas. The one with which it resonates first will absorb it.

Continued

## johanfprins

Spots from many successive single photon-waves must thus build up the intensity of the idenictal wavefronts arriving at the screen. THIS OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE INTENSITY OF THE DIFFRACTED PHOTON-WAVE IS PHYSICALLY A "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION". The latter conclusion is clearly absurd Voodoo!

continued

## johanfprins

Obviousy not: It is a stationary EM wave with a stationary mass-energy m(0)*c^2=h*f (1) which is less than its rest mass energy h*f(0)=m(0)*c^2. It can also have higher energy energy-states m(n)*c^2=h*f(n). Since the electron-wave that absorbs the photon-wave with energy h*f, will gain this energy, it cannot remain a stationary wave with energy h*f(1)=m(1)*c^2. After absorption this energy, its energy must become h*f(1)+h*f. Thus it can ONLY absorb the energy h*f, if a stationary wave with mass-energy m(n)*c^2 =h*f(n) is allowed so that m(n)*c^2=h*f(n)=h*(f(1)+f). Therefore resonance occurs.

It is quite funny that this follows directly from the time-perturbed solutions of the Schroedinger equation that the resonace frequency is f=f(n)-f(1). Remember Fermi's Golden Rule?

## johanfprins

Maxwel's equations allow solutions for waves with distributed charge within them. Light-waves do not have charge, but distributed uncharged EM-energy. When a gamm-ray forms a electron and a positron, then surley the electron and positron are being formed from EM energy, which proves that the electron must be an EM wave.

After all, why would the continuously distributed energy of an atomic-orbital electron-wave increase when it absorbs a photon-wave consisting of EM energy if the electron's energy is not also EM energy?

Why an electon's charge does not vary has not yet been explained by anyone. It has to do with th magnetic-fied component of an electron's EM-energy; which has NOTHING to do with the "spin" of its charge, since a single charge that spins, or follows a circular path CANNOT have a magnetic moment on its own.

## johanfprins

Yes it did; and therefore the Dirac-equation and Quantum Field Theory are abominations.

He only showed that a SINGLE electron wave cannot be a wave-packet. Wave-packets are only possible within conductors like metals, where they act as charge-carriers while an electric-field is applied. And here Lorentz is correct, since they only form and decay while there is an electric-field. Without the electric-field the electron waves are actual stationary waves, each filling the whole volume of the metal when it is perfect ideal metal. The applied electric-field causes these waves to superpose to form wavepackets.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

[and by extension, Science is NOT a philosophy]

By J Friedland, philo

04-05-12

"So what objective knowledge can philosophy bring that is not already determinable by science? This is a question that has become increasingly fashionable — even in philosophy — to answer with a defiant "none." For numerous philosophers have come to believe, in concert with the prejudices of our age, that only science holds the potential to solve persistent philosophical mysteries as the nature of truth, life, mind, meaning, justice, the good and the beautiful."

"science cannot necessarily tell us what to value... evidence of how most people happen to be does not necessarily tell us everything about how we should aspire to be"

-Only science can ascribe real value to actions and attitudes devoid of political, religious, and traditional bias. Philo has always failed in this respect.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

Science is the effort to eliminate preconceptions about the world, including any ill-conceived and naive attempts to define limits on what we can know a priori.

Something else the collapse of academic philosophy has taught us.

## Estevan57

Dover Publications, July 1997, p. 97. ISBN 0-486-29879-5

"The workings of intuition transcend those of the intellect, and as is well known, innovation is often a triumph of intuition over logic."

"Words and language, whether spoken or written, do not seem to play any

role in my thinking mechanisms. The mental entities that serve as elements of my thought

are certain signs or images, more or less clear,that can 'at will' be reproduced or combined."

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

One orange is certainly concrete enough; so is two oranges, and so is the difference between one orange and two oranges. Concrete enough to get you bit by the monkey. Where's the "abstractness" of one and two, if math is some abstract conception our minds make up? I don't see it.

contd

## Noumenon

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

""We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

## Da Schneib

And the reason it works has nothing to do with epistemology. It's simply because counting things works; and it works because of the conservation laws. And those laws, according to Noether's Theorem, emerge from the dimensional symmetries of the universe. Thus, it is dimensionality that causes the unreasonable accuracy of mathematics, not some philosophical concept.

contd

## Da Schneib

I'll also point out that conservation laws are the reason it's possible for there to be life; if molecules could not be counted on to be there a moment later, nothing could eat, respire, or procreate.

So we see that the most basic concepts of mathematics are embedded in the universe by its dimensionality. This is the reason math works so well.

contd

## Da Schneib

So you see I don't need all these things you keep trying to say are foundational; they are derivable from dimensionality.

## Da Schneib

Yet, the life or death of the amoeba is unquestionably real, and unquestionably due to its being fed or not fed. Like the monkey, it will do everything it is capable of to search for food, and like the monkey, if it fails it dies.

Dimensionality is not something we made up. It's something that was imposed on us and all our forebears. It's a brute fact, not a theory.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Whether he was left- or right-wing, or a centrist, is immaterial. But your insistence upon the unreality of math is right down his alley.

## Da Schneib

The answer is, because many universes formed, and this one had the right dimensionality to form us.

Once such a universe formed, we were inevitable.

## Noumenon

I'm not saying that math can't be applied to order experience. Obviously it can. I'm saying, to do so is a mental phenomenon.

What do you mean math is concrete? Are you saying it exists of itself in some physical way, a la Tegmark? We never discover or observe mathematical entities independently of their application. We can't apply a concept to physical objects at the same time both are discovered; ....the former must be presupposed as prerequisite.

If you're not saying that math is some physical presence, ... the other option would be that we learn math through our experience of reality. Is this it? If so, when? I'm proposing, it was during the evolution of our minds,... hard-wired so to speak.

⇒

## Noumenon

.... in a way that operates autonomously prior to consciousness. I say this because our intuition of time is again a means of ordering experience. Do you think time is a physical entity, that in principal could be discovered independently of its application,... say like a time particle or time field? You may say time is a dimension,... however dimension is again not substantive either.

Keep in mind I'm not questioning math or times application to reality,..... (I've even stated it is a forgone conclusion and not mysterious) ,... I'm asking where does it originate. Do you think Tegmarks pov is a rational one.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

The universe nor the amoeba asks itself questions about the relation between things,.... does reality even distinguish between things or is it One Thing? You're not answering my questions above.

## Noumenon

I do not know of this guy, he would not made it across my radar screen for the reasons stated. Are you suggesting that a failed philo renders every philo thought invalid? Does a failed hypothesis in physics do so?

What do you mean 'unreality'? If a bio-mechanism evolved with a means to order and synthesize experience which include a-priori judgements which are the elements of math, then this is a reality in that it was 'derived from reality', to facilitate experience/observation.

You seem to be suggesting math has some 'disembodied' existence of it's own, quite apart from conceptualizations. This proposition is orders of magnitude more metaphysical than my purely physical/mental account of 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics'.

Please answer the questions above before I can continue.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

Do you agree with Wigner that mathematics are a mental construct or Tegmark (and Penrose who has insinuated such) that mathematics is in some way a Real entity of its own? Taken to it's logical conclusion is Tegmarks metaphysics, and his IV multiverse of mathematical structures.

[I will read johan's post's lator when more time...]

## Noumenon

My problem with this is that since the experiment is conducted with single photon (waves) with energy hf, obviously quantized, the photon flux would be unity, and so there would be no varying intensity wave-fronts.

## Noumenon

I think this side-steps the question since as you know e = mc² is rather ubiquitous, valid even for converting mechanical kinetic energy (-hbar²/2m ∇²) into electron-positron pairs and even protons, etc.

Electrons being themselves EM waves does not seem to explain charge,.. particularly when in principal nothing stops the production of a gamma ray being on par with an electron in terms of energy,... matter wave frequency being on par with gamma ray frequency. I'm sure the electron is very much higher than ever observed but the point is where is the charge of a gamma ray?

## johanfprins

## johanfprins

As I have pointed out before, Maxwell's equations can be solved for an EM wave having a distributed charge. Since Maxwell's equations allow this why are you claiming it is not possible? Furthermore, Maxwell's equations, which are the reason why Special Relativity is valid, DEMANDS that a matter entity moving with a speed v MUST elongate IN ORDER TO HAVEa de Boglie wavelength. Since this is demanded by Maxwell's equations, why would an electron wave NOT be an EM-wave?. It comes from the same equations that model a single light-wave

Cont.

## johanfprins

A positive charge and a negative charge cancel so that the gamma ray is neutral, until it forms a positron and an electron. It is totally understandable that a neutral entity an split int two parts which have oppositely charges: Is it not to you?

## Noumenon

The 'photon flux' is number of photons per surface area per second, which is intensity in terms of photons,... so if only one photon in the experiment then the intensity would be unity, and thus no varying wave-front intensity.

## Noumenon

QFT says there is a electron field, etc. The point was that one could slam two neutrons together ,... or a cat and a hamburger,...and also produce a electron/positron pair, so it does not mean that electrons are EM waves.

Because Maxwell's equations require a charge density term, E•∇= ρ/ε ,..... ρ. If the electron was a EM wave itself, you would not require this term; the divergence of the electric field would be proportional to your EM-wave.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

It's not "derived from" reality. It IS reality. The amoeba dies or lives because of it.

contd

## Da Schneib

That's correct, and I provided very strong evidence to support my contention. Life and death is about as "real" as it gets.

Live or dead is "metaphysical?" Not a chance. You haven't thought your way through your own arguments.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

And the source of the conservation laws is the symmetries of physics over various dimensions. This is the meaning of Noether's Theorem. So the effectiveness of mathematics is due directly to the fact of the existence of dimensions, and the type of math that works depends upon their exact configuration in our universe.

contd

## Da Schneib

Not having read his book, I have no idea. It's on my list. I'll get to it sometime next year.

The amoeba never can discover or observe anything at all. It is incapable of "applying mathematical entities." Nevertheless it lives or dies by these same "mathematical entities," as you put it, without requiring any understanding at all.

contd

## Da Schneib

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make sound?

Yes; sound is vibrations in the air.

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise?

Only if there is something/someone to hear it and remember it later. Noise is not sound; noise is what is heard.

contd

## Da Schneib

If it was hard-wired, it was hard-wired by the universe's behavior, as encoded in our instincts, and its accuracy has been tested and improved for over a billion years. Remember, we are talking about amoebae.

1 not equals 2. Even an amoeba "knows" that, in that it is hardwired to go hunting for the second if the first is not enough.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

I cannot comment since I have not read his book.

contd

## Da Schneib

## TheGhostofOtto1923

Although I dont think the line is very clear with any of the mysticians you enjoy referencing. You cite their physics and math works as justification for their, and thus your own, speculations about ultimate meaning and unreachable realms (wizardry).

Tegmark - mystic

"The human mind then emerges from math, as a self-aware substructure of an extremely complicated mathematical structure... Given the mathematical equations that describe our Universe, an infinitely intelligent mathematician could in principle deduce the properties of both its material content and the minds of its inhabitants."

http://sureshemre...nd-mind/

## TheGhostofOtto1923

"There is nothing wrong with contemplating speculative ideas, but the problem is that while pretending to stay in the realm of science, the "Mr. Hyde" part of the book crosses over to what I must consider science fiction and MYSTICISM. It raises provocative questions that will make you ponder the essence of reality, but readers expecting the discussion to be as coherent and intellectually fulfilling as it is in the scientific sections will be disappointed."

-Edward Frenkel is a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley

-Why nou? Why are you so enamoured with these dumbledorians? Hogwarts isnt REAL.

## tritace

Nov 06, 2014## johanfprins

Intensity is present within a volume. So which volume for a single photon-wave are you talking about? The volume that the photon-wave has just before it is aborsorbed by an ATOMICALLY SIZED absorber, where this "arriving" volume DOES HAVE a varying wave-front intensity since the photon-wave DID move through BOTH slits, or the size of the spot seen on the screen, which is determined by the size of the absorber; NOT the diffracted size of the photon-wave just before it is absorbed.

## johanfprins

QFT assumes without any experimental proof whatsoever that a solitary electron has an electric-field around it that extends to infinity. Such a field is impossible to measure around a solitary charge. To measure it you need a second charge, so you are not measuring what is present around a solitary charge, but you are measuring solely an electric interaction between TWO charges.

To conclude from this that there MUST be an electric-field around a solitary charge is irresponsible quackery. If there are two possibilities: in this case a field or no field, and you cannot experimentally determine which one is correct, a responsible physicist will proceed as if either could be correct, and then see which one leads to an absurdity.

It is clear from QFT which one leads to absurdities, since the integrals of QFT explode into infinities which have to be fudged in order to "renormalize" the results.

## johanfprins

So what is the energy that constitutes a neutron? A neutron has a de Broglie wavelength and as I have posted over and over and over again (with references) one can derive this wavelength from Maxwell's equations. Why would the neutron then exist of anything else than EM-energy?

Of course you require this term: Are you arguing that an electron does not have charge?

Which electric-field are you talking about here? The one that most probably does NOT exist around a solitary electron.....continued

## johanfprins

## Noumenon

Intensity is present within a volume. So which volume for a single photon-wave are you talking about?

Intensity defined in terms of photons, is proportional to the number of photons,.... so if in the experiment a single photon at a time is used,... the Intensity must be unity; There IS no more intensity at one location of the screen as compared to another, so your "at positions where its diffracted wavefront has a higher intensity" does not work.

## Noumenon

Not electric field,.... electron field,.. then for QCD, quark fields, etc.

I don't see how it makes sense to associate difference flavours of energy. Energy is just energy and has generalized units. As I said, purely mechanical energy could also create massive particles.

## Noumenon

No, I thought you were arguing that electrons are EM-waves,... if so then why would the Maxwell equations require the ρ term or j term?

## Noumenon

I have not presented any speculations about metaphysics, ....you continue to either lie or continue to fail to comprehend my posts. I denounce metaphysics in science. If you were able to comprehend my posts you would have known this years ago. You would have also noticed that I condemned Tegmark, as well as others thinking that mathematics "exists" in some way on its own apart from its intellectual use in modeling or conceptualizing reality. You continue to spam with slander and irrelevancies in your 'accusation style' Jerry-Springer rants. You will be ignored unless you accidentally make a point.

## Noumenon

Who quantified the food to one or two?

A majority of philosophers? Can you substantiate that claim?

There is no need to invent a ridiculous example, when the history of physics is littered with failed hypothesis.

## Noumenon

Yes, a basic feature of the universe AS KNOWN,... by an observer that does not counting. The universe does not care about relations between 'parts' of itself,... it just is. It does not need to perform mathematical analysis in order for it to exist.

## Noumenon

But then,.....

Yes, exactly, it's a "description", that is "designed" to "represent", given it's "development",... thus it is not in fact 'concrete' nor has any 'disembodied' existence apart from being a mental construct to represent the universe as perceived.

Admitting this does not mean that it has no application to understanding reality. We already agree that there is no mystery to its success.

## Noumenon

You are conflating objective reality with conceptualizations of it.

There is an Objective Reality (independent of mind, yes), which is the source of physical facts (as observed by mind).

Then there are conceptualizations of those observed facts. These are not 'things unto themselves', but relations between things,... questions asked about the facts.

Conservation laws do NOT exist "[without] some sort of intelligence [to] recognize[] them",... the observed facts which would lead them to, do.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

There is no certainty wrt our Knowledge of it. The universe does not need to be Known to exist.

## Da Schneib

Yes. Look up the Sokal Affair.

## Da Schneib

I couldn't figure out what this is supposed to mean.

The amoeba doesn't "care" either; it can't. It just lives if it gets enough to eat, and dies if it doesn't. No analysis is needed.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

contd

## Noumenon

Mathematics was developed in ancient times when very little was known about the universe, much less conservation laws.

Further, the question of a foundational basis for mathematics is far from being settled,.... so to propose that it has an ontological existence independent of mind, is unsubstantiated.

Also, you have it backwards, ....there can be no conservation laws without an intelligence asking about the rate of change of one degree of freedom with respect to another, and the Application of the concept of symmetry.

## Noumenon

Correct, no analysis,... until an intelligence comes along to understand why it died, and in doing so Quantifies amounts of food so that he could then say 'this much, or that much'...

Math is not physical, so it can't, ..... math is a language to help understand reality.

## Da Schneib

An amoeba cannot "conceptualize," yet its existence is ruled by math.

Conservation laws are the direct result of the structure of the universe, specifically its dimensionality (note: not its contents). Are you seriously claiming that dimensionality isn't a feature of reality? Or that the fact that the amoeba lives or dies isn't?

## Da Schneib

Math doesn't either.

## Da Schneib

Non sequitur.

So the monkey doesn't bite you? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

contd

## Noumenon

We will just have to respectfully disagree on this. I think you have it backwards, particularly when investigations of mathematics preceded inductive investigations of reality in history.

The most basic parts of number theory are embedded in the mind as a-priori judgments, ....so that investigations of the universe will necessarily be modeled in these terms.

## Da Schneib

And you've forgotten Noether's Theorem; conservation laws are the result of dimension.

Whether the amoeba is alive or dead is a brute physical fact. No analysis can change it.

Math is physical. It's based on the existence of distinguishable features of reality which remain in existence. Thus, conservation laws.

You've ignored the fact that things don't pop into and out of existence in our universe.

## Noumenon

Unless math is a 'physical thing' it can't possibly effect the amoeba. The amoeba does not eat 'the number two', ....it eats physical stuff.

Only later when one wants to understand why the amoeba died, does math come into play, in quantifying, answering questions, and speaking of it.

## Da Schneib

Math doesn't depend on being discovered to work. The amoeba lives or dies.

contd

## Da Schneib

Yes, and the amount- note that carefully, it has to be possible to count to have an "amount-" determines if it lives or dies. It's a brute physical fact.

But none of that changes whether the amoeba is alive or dead.

## Noumenon

'Based on', or 'is'? You keep making conflicting statements. 'Based on' implies a model,... while 'IS' (a la Tegmark) implies physical objective existence.

This is what I mean when I say that you're conflating conceptualizations of reality (models), with reality itself.

Are you then saying that a mathematical model of some observed feature of the universe, is a physical reproduction of the universe? If one was successful in developing a T.O.E., would this then mean that he created our universe?

Tell that to the vacuum state representation in QM.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

This is not a violation of the conservation laws; the uncertainty of the particles allows them to exist briefly without violating it. They must, of course, disappear back into the vacuum in order to avoid doing so.

In any case, you're changing the subject.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

I don't agree that math was 'discovered', so that is a loaded question.

So no I don't contend that ,.. only that the elements of math are embedded in the mind as a-priori judgments, ....so that investigations of the universe will necessarily be modeled in these terms, and reality will necessarily be experienced in these terms, ....so that the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematics gives some the wrong impression that mathematics has a some Platonic existence, or that it is a mystery. This is an illusion, and like all such illusions in history of physics, stems from an inability to get out of our own intellectual way.

## Noumenon

I don't agree that dimensionality is a brute physical fact of the universe, which is to say an observable entity of itself. Derived if useful, yes.

In GR there is no absolute dimensionality of space, nor an absolute dimensionality of time,... both are dependent on the observer's reference frame, even when these intuitions of space and time are defined as being physical systems.

Also, in QM either the mathematics of probability is wrong, or spatial dimensionality fails to account for the observed facts of quantum non-locality, and temporal dimensionality fails to account for quantum indeterminacy.

⇒

## Noumenon

This is the thing with math generally, ...the mathematical structures applicable in modeling the universe, are a limited subspace of all mathematical structures derivable from it's foundational elements.

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

If you claim so, show us this "sort" of math.

If you claim not, then how can it be anything but a feature of the universe?

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

And quantum indeterminacy is another brute fact. See the Scully Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

## Da Schneib

But they *work*. You might as well deny refrigerators, or deny the Moon landings.

## Noumenon

The constancy of c implies there is no absolute frame of reference for either space or time in GR,... no absolute space nor absolute time. They're dependent upon the observers reference frame. [I corrected my "absolute dimensionality" wording above]

## Noumenon

Why? In QM to described n particles requires 3n position dimensions. Dimensions are not a substance, they are a useful construct,... they are just 'degrees of freedom'. For example, in equipartition theory of heat,... molecules have the regular 3 translation and 3 rotational degrees of freedom associated with kinetic energy and temperature, but then also 'internal' degrees of freedom given the molecule itself,..... to distribute the energy,... i.e. in latent heat.

[I did not mean to 1-rate you above though]

## Noumenon

I already said that I didn't propose that,.... and implied I can't possible know what that would even mean if anything.

What is successfully described by math in science, which only means a model that links observables in a way that allows for predictions,... is a feature of the observable universe as known and so not independently of an intelligent being. This is the disagreement. That math somehow exists apart and independently from conscious mathematicians.

## Noumenon

Not quite, the inequalities prove either non-locality, or Failure of counterfactual definitiveness.

Yes, that is what I'm saying,.... there is no way to predict when (temporal) say a particular atom decays or say emits a photon.

I should add also wrt GR that it's not nearly as 'nice' as SR,... a space-time reference frame is only valid at a point, in 'tangent space'.

## Noumenon

It has to do with the string theory landscape. Reread my Archimedes bit in that context.

## Noumenon

Why do you suggest I deny it's successful application? I have never done this.

My denying that mathematics exists independent of conscious mathematicians is not to deny physics nor predictive knowledge.

If mathematics exists as a feature of the universe independently of intelligence, then what of the vast majority of mathematics that do not find application in our universe? Tegmark invokes another infinity of worlds in his extension of MWI. Do you think this is rational. If not then how do you answer the question?

## johanfprins

This intensity is irrelevant when it comes to the diffraction of a SINGLE coherent EM-wave: A single photon is a SINGLE coherent EM-wave which must have a volume, and within this volume its intensity is given by its EM-field: When integrating this intensity one obtains hf=m*c^2, no matter what the volume of the wave is at that instant in time: Since when is h*f "unity"?

Obviously there must be such a wave-intensity just before the diffracted wave is absorbed by an atomically-sized absorber to leave a spot. Even the Copenhagen Voodoo claims that there must be such a "probability-wave": LOL

## johanfprins

Are you saying that in QFT they are assuming that thre is no electric-field around a solitary electron? Can you give a reference please?

You contradict yourself: You say "energy is just energy" and then immediately choose a special "flavour of energy" which you cal "purely mechanical energy".

It follows from Maxwell's equations through the Special Theory of Relativity (WHICH IS A DIRECT RESULT OF MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS) that mass-energy is EM-energy. And that even kinetic-energy is mass-energy and thus EM-energy. So what do you mean by "purely mechanical energy". What is its different "flavour"? LOL!!

## johanfprins

Correct! that is what I am arguing since its total energy is m(k)*c^2+m(0)*c^2, as demanded by Maxwell's equations which determine the Special Theory of Relativity.

Thus the energy of an electron is EM-energy and no other "flavour of energy". Furthermore, when using the Lorentz tranformation to transform the diameter of a stationary electron into another inertial refrence frame so that the electron moves with a speed v along this diameter, the electron becomes longer along this diameter and has a phase time that, like any phase-time.along a coherent wave, changes with position. When calculating the wavelength from this phase-time one gets the de Broglie wavelength. Thus, the electron itself is a coherent wave as determined by Maxwell's equations.

Why not? Solutions with a disributed charge density are possible.

## Noumenon

Yes, a probability-wave, but not a physical wave. If all forms of energy are quantized to hv, then it follows that with only hv present (one photon) there can not be varying degrees of intensity.

You appear to disagree that energy (EM) is quantized in itself, but only upon emission and absorption. Is this correct?

## Noumenon

No, there is still the EM field (photon), but also an electron field.

I used that just as an example. In GR energy is even more generalized, gravitational energy, pressure is even energy,.....

## Noumenon

Yes, by Adding the charge term. If you are maintaining that electrons are EM-waves, you must show how it is possible to generate a charged particle with mass, out of the charge-neutral and massless electromagnetic field.

## johanfprins

Nov 08, 2014## johanfprins

I am busy doing it. The manuscript should be ready within a year. An EM field need not be neutral, since Maxwell's equations allow solutions for charged EM waves. Furthermore an EM wave is NOT massless since its total energy is always m*c^2. Or are you arguing that Einstein's conclusion that E=m*c^2 is wrong?

Goodbye for now. It is late here in South Africa and I am watching the rugby.

## Da Schneib

In fact, GR says that *acceleration* is absolute. You can always find if you're in an accelerated frame with a gravity experiment.

## Da Schneib

I don't argue that all of math is concrete; just that its basis is.

## Da Schneib

:D

It's OK, thanks for saying so.

Math is based on a small number of simple postulates. The existence of zero, the existence of one and its identification as the successor of zero, the identification of two and the rest of the natural numbers as successors of successors of zero, the associative, commutative, and distributive laws, and the existence of operators for addition and subtraction.

contd

## Da Schneib

I argue that the most foundational portions of math require no mathematicians, nor any consciousness. And I've been using my amoeba gedankenexperiment to prove it. The simplest axioms of math are brute physical facts that even an unconscious entity incapable of thought, much less analysis, must adapt to. These are features of the universe, not of conscious thought.

## Da Schneib

Basically, what I'm saying is that particles in superposition have no actual value, until they are measured and present one. If they did have such values despite the superposition, then Bell's Inequality would fail, if there was no non-locality. Thus, either there is non-locality, or there is contrafactual definiteness (i.e., particles in superposition have no value for the superposed variable).

The language here is very difficult, so it's understandable that this would lead to confusion.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

No, you've denied the Postulate of the Existence of Globally Inertial Frames. GR does not deny this postulate; in fact, it incorporates it, along with the rest of SR.

## Da Schneib

I predict that if you have one orange, and someone gives you another, you will have two oranges, and that this is a basic fact of existence separate from analysis. And I present my monkey and amoeba gedankenexperiments as proof.

contd

## Da Schneib

I cannot comment not having read Tegmark's book.

## Da Schneib

## TheGhostofOtto1923

"There is nothing wrong with contemplating speculative ideas, but the problem is that while pretending to stay in the realm of science, the "Mr. Hyde" part of the book crosses over to what I must consider science fiction and MYSTICISM."

## Noumenon

What could possibly be the difference? How do you define or rather discover "physical dimensions"?

The Hilbert space formulation came later, used by the great von Neumann to find a common mathematical underlying structure, and indeed unifies both Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's approaches. Given this fact, it should be Hilbert space, that a mathematical Realist would regard as existing independent of intelligence.

Of course it does. There is no global inertial frames. It's the entire point

## Noumenon

Perhaps our views are not as different as it appears then. I also, regard the 'elements of math', to be concrete in the sense of being a-priori judgments.

If they are 'concrete' in this sense then they are not 'made up' by conscious minds, but rather are conditions for thought and experience to be even possible,... an evolved mechanism for ordering and grouping objects for conscious awareness, ...i.e. as in the basis of set theory.

## Noumenon

It's not chauvinism, it's to limit science to observations. It seems too many wish to make speculations about what cannot be observed. Our knowledge of the universe is irrevocably mind dependent. This is not to say 'made up', but only that it contains elements that added by us.

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - S. Hawking

## Noumenon

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment" - B. D'Espagnet

## Noumenon

You're mistaken on this point. SR assumed a Minkowski spacetime which is flat, and so one's inertial reference frame could indeed extend to all of spacetime.

In GR, this assumption is not made. It is not even valid to compare two tensors at two different points [without the Riemann tensor, which can be derived from the commutator of two covariant derivatives operating on a tensor.]

## Noumenon

You're factually wrong. The uncertainty principal is an intrinsic limitation in observing non-commutative variables. All subsequent theories will have take account of this also,.... just as all subsequent theories of gravitation will have to take into account that the earth orbits the sun. QM is a complete theory. The Bell inequalities has proven this as a mathematical deduction.

## Noumenon

I don't know who wrote that, but your quote appears to have accidentally agreed with me. This may make Stumpy jealous,.... I guess it will be you who will be sleeping on the couch this time.

## Noumenon

Given you rejection of the notion that all forms of energy, including EM, is quantized, it follows you would reject how intensity is defined in terms of photons.

Yes, good catch. I read it as 'counterfactual', my bad.

## johanfprins

There is NO experimental proof whatsoever that it must ALWAYS be so. In fact, experimental results involving EM waves point in the opposite direction. A continuously emitted sinusoidal carrier wave for radio-transmission has no quanta, unless you interrupt the transmission regularly to only send out pulses each with energy hf. If quanta are emitted, it is the source which determines that it is so, NOT the nature of the EM radiation.

Why do you want to believe that a Voodoo probability-wave arrives at a diffraction screen and not a real wave-intensity? Why do you not want to believe that an electron-wave has charge when this charge models the Aharanov-Bohm.....

## johanfprins

By having distributed charge, an electron-wave has a centre-of-charge. When it moves through the two slits while being diffracted, it forms two lobes, so that its centre-of-charge moves smack-bang through the magnetic field between the slits. The magnetic field H thus deflects the diffracted wave front owing to the Lorentz force.

But for some unexplained WEIRD reason, our mainstream theoretical physicists insist that the electron-"particle" can experience the magnetic field H; even when NOT moving through it. Sheesh!

## Noumenon

I already mentioned the equipartition theorum above and the quantum effects on latent heat. There have also been quantum experiments with

nano-sized objects. Energy is quantized no matter it's form. The Schrodinger equation uses the Hamiltonian on it's right hand side.

## Noumenon

A quantum amoeba would have trouble with countability as being an independent aspect of the universe given the indistinguishability of fermions,... where it literally has no physical meaning to 'count'.

In fact this is what lead Wheeler and Feynman to propose that there is only one electron in the universe..... (probably a bit in jest but the point is there).

When a macroscopic intelligence then performs a measurement he "does something" or "adds conceptual structure" so that he conforms reality to his a-priori judgment of distinguishability.

[btw, than you for a respectably and enlightening discussion !!!]

## Noumenon

Also, the basis of Hilbert space to which the wave-function is projected upon a measurement, ...the 'eigenstates', .... are dependent on the experimental apparatus, which in essence IS the (Hermitian) Operator acting on Hilbert space. This collapse dependency of macroscopic equipment (and so a conscious intelligence), is what distinguishes 'measurement' from just 'quantum interaction', ....the latter causing some to think decoherence solves the measurement problem. [But we already beat that horse :)]

## johanfprins

You are totally misunderstanding why there are "quantum effects" on latent heat and also what energy is all about. Energy is NOT ALWAYS quantized: No matter what is it's form. The energy within a laser beam and within a continuously emitted radio-wave with a specific frequency is NOT quantized all.

You are arguing that since a pipet can only measure drops of a certain size, the water in a cup must be "quantized" into drops of this size. Stop being so utterly absurd!

So does Maxwell's equation for a light wave of ANY energy h*f to E>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>h*f.

## Da Schneib

Why? I don't follow your reasoning here.

## Da Schneib

You can always find out if you're in an inertial frame by performing a gravity experiment, just as you can always find out if you're in an accelerated frame by performing a gravity experiment. All observers in other inertial frames will agree on the outcome of the experiment (in an inertial frame, not an accelerated one).

There is no absolute motion; two observers in different inertial frames moving relative to one another cannot agree that one is still and one is moving. There is no gravity experiment they can perform that will confirm that either one is moving, or that either one is not moving.

contd

## Da Schneib

Your misunderstanding might come from not quite realizing the meaning of "inertial frame." It's not an arbitrary definition; if you're in an inertial frame, you can perform a local gravity experiment and determine it. If you're in an inertial frame, you will not experience gravity; GR says gravity and ordinary acceleration cannot be differentiated by any local gravity experiment. But you *can* tell you're in an accelerated frame. Acceleration is absolute. You will experience weight, and you won't be able to tell if it's gravity or another form of acceleration, such as Newton's Law of Action and Reaction.

## Da Schneib

Set theory and number theory share a number of features, but the very definition of "set" contains abstract thought. We are approaching agreement on what exact features of math are intrinsic to the existence of a universe, and what features are intrinsically abstract.

## Da Schneib

String physics says there are many types of universes; it does not, in and of itself, propose that there is more than one actual universe. For string physics to be correct there need be only one that corresponds to our universe's laws.

contd

## Da Schneib

To confirm this, we have a few choices:

1. We might find a way to send some sort of probe into these other universes that can tell us they're there.

2. We might find a way to manipulate string physics to derive our universe and its laws from them.

3. We might find an effect that cannot be explained without the Landscape.

contd

## Da Schneib

As far as 3, astrophysicists believe they may have discovered an effect of another universe on ours, and that this effect may be visible in the cosmic microwave background radiation. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to be really definitive. So this also is an open question.

contd

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

## imido

Nov 10, 2014## Da Schneib

However, it is not a repudiation of it. It's merely an acknowledgement that spacetime is not in fact flat.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Is that you, Zephir? Sure sounds like you, pretending that physicists miss obvious facts. All that's missing is AWT.

## Da Schneib

Indistinguishability of fermions does not postulate that two fermions at *different locations* cannot be distinguished. As I thought, using a "quantum amoeba" results in an impossibility.

contd

## Da Schneib

I'm familiar with that proposal, and like you think it was probably partly humorous. I would argue though that the point of it is more that an electron moving forward in time is indistinguishable from a positron moving backward in time, and vice versa, than the indistinguishability of electrons.

contd

## Da Schneib

And thank YOU, as well; this is very interesting and I've already learned something.

## Da Schneib

SR doesn't deny that there may be more than one direction in time; in fact, if it is taken as real, then time is a dimension just like the spatial dimensions, but its shape- that is, its relation to the other dimensions- is not right circular, like the three spatial dimensions are to one another, but hyperbolic.

contd

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

The envelope of the hyperboloid is what is known as the "light cone."

contd

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

I was never satisfied we'd exhausted the subject of decoherence; we started thrashing each other before that, and I'd like to try this again now that we each understand the other is merely arguing physics, not attempting to discredit us. I suspect the outcome may be different.

## Noumenon

A repudiation of global inertial frames, yes, but not inertial frames at a point (locally). I'm familiar with GR a bit.

## Noumenon

When I say "judgment" I don't mean a 'conscious decision' but rather "a-priori judgment" is to mean an 'innate' form of reasoning,... prior to consciousness. You're probably right though wrt an amoeba. I went to a quantum amoeba below because the context of d'Espagnat, Hawking, Heisenberg, and my comments are in that realm.

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

## TheGhostofOtto1923

This is also how the human factor is weeded out of science. Intuition has increasingly produced fewer results. Successful scientists are the ones who have followed evidence wherever it led despite their their intuition.

Nou and his wizard buddies see human influence as a limit but fail to realize how science is the very act of removing it from the process of inquiry.

We are even designing self-programming machines to replace us altogether in this endeavor, because of our acknowledged limits.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

-Which is why people like kant were enlisted to preserve religion in spite of science. Ask ayn rand. Mystics and religionists retard progress by proclaiming that since inaccessible realms exist, we neednt waste our time trying to investigate them. Faith before knowledge.

"The man who . . . closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. . . .

"His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.

"Kant is the most evil man in mankind's history."

## TheGhostofOtto1923

"Hawking: I think it's a cop-out. If you find theoretical physics and mathematics too hard, you turn to mysticism"

## Noumenon

Yes, certainly, but he doesn't make the distinction either. It seems to me that if you accept concrete mathematics as having some independent existence, then abstract mathematics must follow. Even Tegmark admit this given his level IV multiverse, and does not make the distinction in his book.

All three quotes, Hawking, d'Espagnat, and Heisenberg are making the same basic point that I'm attempting to convey here. d'Espagnat has written a book on it based on QM arguments, linked to above somewhere. If any of them started with the premise that mathematics is derived from, or is reality, they wouldn't have need of mentioning 'human brains', 'consciousness' nor 'our method of questioning',... epistemic.

## Noumenon

Well that begs the question, "at different locations" because it implies they were observed. Once their wavefunctions over lap, they become Indistinguishable. Since the quantum amoeba is just a quantum system itself, two particles plus amoeba become one quantum system. There is no measurement made to collapse into a "position".....

## Noumenon

Yes, quantum interaction is a (non-observable) brute physical fact, however it does not constitute a measurement. Decoherence does not actually collapse the wave-function. The von Neumann projection postulate collapses the wave function to an observable value......

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

It is complete as is possible in (observable) practice. The Hermitian Operator IS in all respects the measuring equipment, whilst the basis axis of Hilbert space are the possible observable (eigen) values.....

## Noumenon

... and don't forget the observer also,.... but this is not possible to do in practice,... and since science is empirical, practicality is all that matters.

Interestingly, while Bohr stressed the issue of the macro observing the micro for the discontinuity between unitary evolution of the state-vector and collapse to a observable value, ...von Neumann's Hilbert space formulation equates the Hermitian Operator with the measuring equipment, rendering the distinction mute in actual practice. Both agreed in essence however.

In any case, we may have common ground,....

## Noumenon

Yes, exactly correct !!!, (with one caveat*). That the investigator can not determine his own wave function nor that of his equipment in practice, is what distinguishes 'measurement' from 'quantum interaction'. ....

## Noumenon

*What do you mean by unrealities? It only makes sense to speak of reality in terms of what is actually observable,... which is to say that scientific reality is dependent on an observer because interacting with a quantum system forces it into a macro "value",... while we know the underlying reality (independent of an intelligence) is some evolving wave-thingy (?!) containing all the information for which a choice of equipment (operator on Hilbert space)... extracts "values" that are meaningful at the macro scale.

... or something ....(I may have more time to be coherent in the next day or so)

## Da Schneib

contd

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

You could try telling him that "angle" has a different meaning in hyperbolic geometry and suggest he examine his calculator and find out what the "hyp" button means. Unfortunately he's likely to have a really, really old calculator that doesn't know how to tell the difference between imaginary numbers and infinity.

## johanfprins

## johanfprins

t*, the time on the clock at O' is t'=t*. What is instantaneously different within the two IRF's is the position of the SAME wave-front!

Noumenon: Wake up from your pathetic stupor!

## Noumenon

Quantum mechanics is the physical rediscovery of Kant's epistemology, or rather, it's non-intuitive nature is the result of what he discovered. I'm entirely convinced of this, and recognized it while studying CoPR, ...before discovering d'Espagnat's argument and the fact that A. Pais regarded Bohr the "natural successor to Kant". If it was only me, then I would indeed question the epistemic link. It is the point being made by d'Espagnat, Hawking, and Heisenberg... No one is saying that science can not obtain predictive knowledge, ONLY that our knowledge of reality is not mind independent.

## Noumenon

I read that book and it's prequel 'Emperors New Mind'. There is zero "mysticism" in it. If you continue to push this line of argument you will be ignored. It is purely a physical argument for that possibility, and against the notion that awareness could be simulated algorithmically. After all, the latter assumption could have been made by my dog on the basis that a computer happens to be sitting on a desk while considering the question. How the mind works won't be discovered by computer dorks.

## Noumenon

Yes, d'Espagnat's wording requires context least it be mistaken. I've addressed this above. He argues against that we could obtain knowledge of 'independent reality' (independent of mind). IOW, it's a rejection of Scientific Realism and acceptance of Scientific Positivism (or instrumentalism). Hawking and Heisenberg are saying exactly this also,... and it's based on experimental facts of QM.

## Noumenon

Since we are discussing QM I changed the analogy to a quantum amoeba,.... it was only meant to be a quantum system unto itself without the presumption of 'observation' coming into play.

## johanfprins

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

We seem to have two areas of disagreement,... 1) does a quantum interaction (independent of conscious intelligence) constitute a measurement, or is a intelligence required given von Neumann's postulate and that Hermitian operators are physically realized in macroscopic apparatus design and interpretation. 2) Do core elements of mathematics for which abstract math is derived exist independently of intelligence as an intrinsic feature of reality,.. or are they a-priori judgments of intuition (hard-wired given evolution) which only gives that illusion on account that observation itself must be in those conceptual forms.

The two questions are related imo.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

-You really need to stop misrepresenting hawking and other non- and anti-mystics.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

## TheGhostofOtto1923

-These dorks are doing science... -while what YOU are doing is mysticism. You reveal your disdain for science and your preference for the supernatural, in this remark.

## TheGhostofOtto1923

## TheGhostofOtto1923

THEY all think so and THEY know far more about what science is and what it is not, than YOU.

It's clear that you are seriously self-deluded about your primary motives here.

Kantian mysticism is anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-human. Any randite will tell you this.

## Noumenon

What are you talking about?! I have no interest in mysticism nor supernatural. And it's so obvious I have disdain for science since I don't appear to know anything about it, right?

Step one is to understand how the brain functions, step two is to then simulate it,.... if it is even algorithmic or requires a physical foundation is an open question. The a.i. community traditionally skips step one. We are no where near understanding how awareness comes about.

## Noumenon

Where did I say consciousness can somehow influence the metaphysical,..... I don't even believe in anything metaphysical?! WTF are you talking about. Hawking never said this. Do you just invent things as you go along?

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## TheGhostofOtto1923

## TheGhostofOtto1923

You keep referring to despagnats 'veiled reality' as strictly science. I have provided refs from many individuals who know much more about it than you, who claim that that's EXACTLY what it is.

THE IDEA that there are realms beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, is by definition a MYSTICAL one. And according to hawking it is the refuge of people too lazy or too dim to properly understand science.

Do I need to repeat his quote for you?

## Noumenon

That simple, eh? It will require neuroscience, psychology, medical, and cognitive science,.... not computer dorks.

I never said that ideas or thoughts have a metaphysical basis. I have said that ideas like god or souls are metaphysical ideas. I'm not responsible for your misapprehensions

The mind and consciousness, has only a purely physical basis, ...the bio-mechanism, the brain, ......and can be studied and eventually understood fully.

## Noumenon

I'm staring at the book (which I have read and you have not) and see no such appended criticism. The only mention of Hawking besides purely about physics, is a footnote, here.

## Noumenon

You have not substantiated that Hawking said there was anything mystical in Penrose's argument in that book. The notion that quantum effects are operative in the brain and consciousness, is not a 'mystical' one. It may be wrong, but it is not 'mystical'.

That Hawking took exception to Penrose's hypothesis does not mean that Hawking is any more omnipotent in understanding anything than Penrose.

Are you seriously contending that Hawking is suggesting that "theoretical physics and mathematics [are] too hard" for Roger Penrose, one of the preeminent mathematical physicists in the world?

What books by Penrose have you read, if any? I have read four, and do not recall a single 'mystical' statement by him.

## Noumenon

How would you know? I have said only that the book I read, "On physics and Philosophy" is about QM, positivism and anti-realism. I did not make reference to everything ever stated or believed by d'Espagnat. I do not accept everything that any one person has ever said.

You have not substantiated that Hawking ever said d'Espagnat or Penrose are "too dim to understand science". In fact all three have made major contributions to physics, and their knowledge of present physical understanding is complete.

Had you any interest in science yourself, you would have never made such a objectionable and offensive statement.

## Noumenon

It is just a limiting concept. As an analogy, when one speaks of the 'big bang expansion of the universe', it is not ABOUT what the universe is expanding into, ....but instead only in delimiting observable features of the universe. Like wise, my referencing an 'Independent Reality', 'Veiled Reality', or 'Noumenon', is merely to delimit valid scientific enquiry.

It is perfectly consistent to hold a) that there is an objective Reality that 'informs' scientific investigation, that b) yet we cannot attain knowledge of 'independent reality', .. independent of and unaffected by our added conceptualizations and means of observation, and c) that predictive knowledge of phenomenal reality is possible d) yet maintain an atheistic or agnostic position wrt metaphysics as I do.

## Noumenon

To follow up on this,... it has been proven resoundingly by Godel, as i'm sure you're aware, that any attempt at grounding mathematics on a logical foundation (elements of math) will necessarily fail in one of two ways. The 'Hilbert Program' and extensive work of Bertrand Russell in his magnum opus, Frege and Peano,... was proven to be unattainable. If the elements of math (it's logical axiomatic basis) cannot be used to derive a mathematical system with consistency or completeness, this seems a problem for A above.

"for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them"

## Noumenon

"does a quantum interaction (independent of conscious intelligence) constitute a measurement, or is a intelligence required given von Neumann's postulate and that Hermitian operators are physically realized in macroscopic apparatus design and interpretation."

## Noumenon

I should also mention here, it is not only just impractical, but logically impossible as it would result in an infinite regression, thus requiring an observer for That system, etc etc

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

1) "So capitalized "not". Are you making an Absolutists pronouncement, [..or..] just giving your opinion?"

2) "Do you acknowledge that many preeminent physicists have in fact written on the subject?"

3) "Do you acknowledge that interpretations of qm for example is as a matter of indisputable fact by definition, philosophy of physics?"

4) "Are you saying that one's philosophical outlook wrt Realism vs Positivism and so core interpretation of qm, does not guide one in hypothesis?"

5) "Or, are you just saying a truism no one has ever disagreed with,... that experiment and mathematical formulations of theories are developed by physicists, and not philosophers?"

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

I will add another comment that relates to "quantum interaction" vs "measurement by intelligent observer", ...I.e. are they equivalent?

When Heisenberg developed his uncertainty principal he envisioned and explained it in terms of the "observer effect",... an inherent limit of observability,... i.e. the act of hitting a electron with a photon to 'measure' it's position disturbs the system in a way that momentum is then unknown.

N. Bohr was very much against this explanation and argued with Heisenberg to exclude it from his paper. Bohr understood that it wasn't this quantum observer effect that was fundamental, but rather the application of incompatible concepts in experimental design,... he called this idea, 'complementarity'.

⇒

## Noumenon

I believe that Heisenberg was eventually won over, however the point is that his early explanation was in essence 'Measurement is equivalent to Interaction',.. while Bohr's explanation was that 'Measurement is equivalent to Application of Concepts by an intelligent observer'.

Is it possible to perform an experiment to decide between these two approaches? Remarkably, according to J. Baggott, the answer is yes! I'm going by memory, so once I receive the book I will post references,... I believe it is the quantum eraser experiment though.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

One electron hits it over *here*, and another over *there*, at the same observed time, which places the two events outside one anothers' light cones. Looks distinguishable to me.

## Da Schneib

Sure it does. The two particles will interact at least by momentum exchange.

contd

## Da Schneib

The wavefunction has collapsed; if it remained in superposition, they could never interact.

But that's the definition of decoherence! I'm sorry, I simply can't agree with this, and I've presented compelling evidence above of why.

In fact, repeat the experiment many times, and you'll find that because the position is precisely determined, the momentum takes on a range of values; and that range is the one predicted by the uncertainty relation, ΔpΔx ≈ ħ/2.

## Da Schneib

You're right that it's not an interpretation; it's another brute physical fact. It's obvious from the fact that we have to isolate entangled particles or they lose their entanglement through interaction with the environment; that is, through decoherence.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

But that has nothing to do with whether a precise position can be established for a particle when it collides with another particle.

Since I don't agree that's what a Hermitian operator is, I can't agree with this either.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

The full process includes a computer evaluating millions of such pictures, and picking out the ones that are interesting. Other plans involve characterizing the variables measurable in the bubble chamber over large numbers of identical events, so the "filter" may not be just a few, but a majority of the observed events, which can then be averaged in various ways to show various different measured parameters.

contd

## Da Schneib

Once you've let the computer do this work, the so-called "measurement problem" becomes far more acute. Either you assert a bunch of mysticism about how the computer was in superposition (ridiculous) and the experimenter decohered the computer, or you admit that any mechanical procedure can decohere entangled quanta, and once you admit that, why should it be anything but interaction with other quanta?

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

You can easily prove this with a light beam and three polarizers. As you know, two polarizers aligned orthogonally shut out all light. However, when you introduce a third polarizer between them, oriented at 45°, light comes through again. The spin has been measured on a second axis, and this measurement has erased the previous spin on the orthogonal axis. This is because spins are discrete; you either know it or you don't. There isn't any range; it's UP or it's DOWN and that's it.

contd

## Da Schneib

Thus, the orthogonal spin becomes indeterminate-- after it has already been measured, remember-- when the non-orthogonal measurement is made. It is erased from reality.

You can do this experiment on a tabletop, and no matter how you twist it or turn it, that's the only explanation. If the photons kept their spin in the orthogonal direction after it was measured in the non-orthogonal direction, no light would come through. That spin is randomized by the measurement. At the quantum level, it is in superposition.

The quantum spins have been decohered.

## Da Schneib

I think we have some disagreements on measurement, and on decoherence. I'll wait for you to look this stuff over and see what you think, Noum.

## Noumenon

The exclusion principal does not say that wave-functions can't overlap. It only says that identical fermions cannot have all their quantum numbers the same. In fact a single wave-function can describe a system of multiple particles. Two identical fermion wave-functions can have overlapping position or momentum representations, etc.

## Noumenon

I said 'quantum interaction', ...not macroscopic interaction. A bubble chamber is a macroscopic system that promotes decoherence, not avoids it. By then, decoherence has resulted in LOSS of phase coherence, and thus LOSS of the effects of the probability amplitude Interference that is characteristic of quantum behavior. We don't disagree wrt macroscopic measurements.

Decoherence does not provide an explanation of why a specific (qm) observable value is obtained. This is known as the 'problem of definite outcomes', and is why pure 'quantum interaction' via decoherence is not 'measurement via intelligence'.

## Noumenon

Sorry, that is not correct. There is no actual 'collapse of the wave-function' implied by the definition of decoherence.

The total wave-function still exists and continues to evolve. It only provides an explanation of why an ensemble of possibilities resolves into a single macroscopic observable result,... however, as mentioned above,...it does not explain why that particular result rather than another.

For example, ⇒

## Noumenon

The electron wave-function interacts with the complex screen material wave-functions, causing loss of phase coherence and thus loss of probability wave-interference. This is indeed decoherence, and indeed resolves into a Macroscopic Observation of the electron at a position on the screen.

However, and this is the salient point,.... before interacting with the screen, the quantum electron wave-function had by then already interfered with itself in such a way that some positions on the screen are ruled out completely.

Decoherence can't explain why, That particular position value rather than another of some probability resulted or couldn't,... and so can not constitute a 'measurement'. By definition a 'measurement' is the resolving to a 'particular [conceptual] value'.

## Noumenon

There is no other definition of "collapse of the wavefunction" than the above. Von Neumann introduced it.

## Noumenon

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the Schordinger equation and the projection postulate of von Neumann, upon a measurement. There is no such incompatibility or discontinuity in decoherence alone, because, assuming an omnipotent observer, in principal a Schrödinger wave equation could be known for the entire quantum system and environment.

The discontinuity lies in the formulation of quantum mechanics and the imposition of a conceptual 'representation' as the basis of Hilbert space; the possible observable values given the experimental arrangement.

## Noumenon

The measuring Equipment must be representative of the Hilbert space representation in terms of the possible values and the Hermitian Operator acting on it. This is simply the von Neumann formulation. You can only measure one of position, or momentum, or spin, at a time,... given the respective different equipment arrangement. I don't mean literally the Hermitian Operator is the measuring equipment, but that it must be representative of it if there is any possibility of observation.

## Noumenon

By forcing the 'underlying reality' to conform to his a-priori intuitions, ...by designing equipment compatible with the way his mind experiences.

As I attempted to convey above,.. I believe what is going on is that in the act of conceptualization of reality, we force reality to conform to our,... evolved [and so artificial wrt qm]... a-priori intuitions, or means of synthesizing experience,... in a way that our knowledge of the universe is irrevocably mind dependent. The quotes by Hawking, Heisenberg, d'Espagnat, conveys this point.

As the above article states, "No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. [...] Is consciousness required? We don't really know."

## Noumenon

It can't be randomized by each polarizer film individually. The number of photons coming all the way through is dependent upon all three polarizers as a group, and so is not reset by each polarizer separately.

In fact as is true generally in qm measurements, once the wave-function collapses to a particular observable value, any subsequent but exact measurement, if performed quick enough to keep the wavefunction 'localized', will produce the exact same value.

⇒

## Noumenon

[with n = non-orthogonal (actually every possible observable value is 'orthogonal'), and v = vertical polarizer, and h = horizontal polarizers]....

The probability of passing through the 1st and 2nd filter is |(n|v)|² = cos²45° multiplied by the probability of passing through the 2nd and 3rd, |(h|n)|² = cos²(90°-45°),... which is about 25% of the photons getting through. The photon 'feels out' the entire experimental apparatus.

Whatever the 'underlying reality thing' is that is being measured, it is being conformed to, or forced, to take on conceptual observable values, given the experimental apparatus,... directions. 'Directions' or 'positions' are not tangible things.

## Noumenon

Decoherence does not explain these specific value outcomes, given the widely acknowledged 'problem of definite outcomes'. Therefore, while it provides an explanation of how the macroscopic realm is emergent from the quantum realm, it does not constitute a measurement of a quantum system.

## Da Schneib

The fluid in the bubble chamber isn't made of quanta?

How many bubble chamber fluid quanta does an incoming quantum have to interact with before it becomes a "macroscopic interaction?" And if multiple quantum interactions occur, isn't that decoherence?

## Da Schneib

Did you forget the three polarizers experiment? It erases the previous value of the spin angular momentum quantum number on the orthogonal axis, remember that? The third polarizer decoheres the light beam's previous polarization. That's the definition of decoherence.

## Da Schneib

I'm only responding to your initial assumptions because we're not agreeing on them; there's no point in wasting our time until we agree on the initial assumptions.

I don't think you quite understand decoherence, or its identification with environmentally caused "collapse" of superposed values into eigenvalues. I can't really move on into talking about what the alternatives to "collapse" are until we've cleared up decoherence, so I think we should stop there and come to a consensus about what it really means and implies.

This is why I said it's a brute fact; it's verified by every experiment. In classical terms, it's the mechanism whereby fluids of different temperatures mix and over time come to be a single fluid of intermediate temperature. It happens with Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics just as much as with Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics, technically speaking.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

The answer is, the Moon's quanta are decohered by the Sun's light bouncing off them, by the collisions it has with cosmic rays and solar wind particles and the interplanetary medium, and by its gravitational interactions with, ultimately, every other body in the universe, on an ongoing basis, so yes, the Moon is always there even if no one looks at it.

## Noumenon

IOW, Decoherence is more of a heuristic explanation of why macro behavior emerges from quantum behavior,... it gives the APPEARANCE of wave-function collapse, not actual wave-function collapse as defined by von Neumann.

I ask that you reread my response wrt the bubble chamber carefully. I am not denying decoherence, in fact I stated clearly that such a "macroscopic system [bubble chamber] promotes decoherence".

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

I would like you to reassess that conclusion after reading the rest of my posts above.

Also, I would like to make clear that the Schrodinger wave-function is categorically NOT a physical wave of some sort. It is a mathematical construction by a intelligence, to represent all the information about a quantum system considered in isolation.

It does not even resolve to "values" per se, but rather to probabilities that are dependent on the normalization condition given the span of possible values Defined by the experimental apparatus. Further, the 'what' to be teased out of the wave-function is entirely dependent on the experimental apparatus, and thus the experimenter. As I said above, "Quantum systems interacting independent of an intelligent observer do not produce 'values'."

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

In other words, decoherence does not 'collapse the wave-function', of 'superposed values into eigenvalues'.

Measurement by an intelligence must be distinct from just quantum interaction. The wave-function used in actual experiments is isolated, and the Hilbert space representation is Defined from classical concepts,.... to which the wave-function is collapsed to obtain "values".

## Noumenon

Which is why von Neumann's formulation and the Copenhagen interpretation advocated a "collapse", and is the way actual experiments operate.

According to Zeh, even "Schrödinger [eventually] argued that the wave function might not represent a physical object (not even in a statistical sense), but should rather have a fundamental psycho-physical meaning".

It is a mathematical construction by an intelligence, to represent what is known about an isolated system. If one attempts to extend it beyond and including the immediate experimental apparatus, one is lead into problems as pointed out by von Neumann,... solved only by many-minds or many-worlds philosophies derived over a 'slosh or two of sherry'.

## Noumenon

Actually, my statement quoted here is not even accurate enough,....as it doesn't even resolve into probabilities either, as squaring the wave-function required for the Born rule is a separate step taken as an interpretation of the wave-function.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

I don't know what this means. Could you explain further, please? What is "amplitude interference," and why is it "beyond the capability of the measuring apparatus?"

Please link and quote the definition by von Neumann and explain why decoherence is not "actual wave function collapse."

contd

## Da Schneib

And the environment apparently decoheres entangled particles; they must be protected from the environment to stay entangled. Measurement of a parameter that is complementary under uncertainty to a previously measured value always results in the erasure of the previously measured value. This is the meaning of Heisenberg uncertainty.

I shall.

Of course it does; in the position-momentum uncertainty pair. But that doesn't mean it decoheres other parameters, and it also doesn't change the values of any non-uncertain values like charge, or parity, or quark count, or lepton count.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

'Amplitude interference' occur with the phase terms of the wave function. These are the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix, and are responsible for what distinguishes quantum behavior from classical behavior,.. i.e. some paths or values are ruled out because of destructive interference. Taking an inner product (squaring the wave-function) causes these off-diagonal terms to vanish, so that it removes the √(-1) terms (phase), resulting in real numbers which can be interpreted as probabilities.

Because an experimenter never has a wave-function description of the measuring apparatus.

## Noumenon

So, in fact, it has not been ubiquitous in QM experiments at all in terms of quantifiable wave-function description, ...except as an heuristic explanation, .....other than these recent very specialized and very difficult experiments.

This is why I am saying that the cloud/bubble chambers are Macroscopic Observations, and that the electron hitting the detection screen is also a Macroscopic Observation. By then there is no quantum interaction behavior,... decoherence results in LOSS of quantum interference. They must use mesoscopic objects to even have a chance of observing it occurring.

The debate was whether 'quantum interaction' IS measurement in the equivalent sense of a measurement performed by an intelligence.

## Noumenon

I did better than that above by quoting the man who discovered decoherence, Heinz-Dieter Zeh, as saying so.

Von Neumann introduced 'wave-function collapse' as part of his Hilbert space formulation of qm, which encompasses both Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's approach, so that I can always refer to it validly.

⇒

## Noumenon

It is simply when an quantum experiment obtains a real number value, as described above wrt density matrix, in the context of that mathematical formulation.

Since the Schrödinger equation never gives values, this is an extra step in qm,... the projection postulate is wave-function collapse. It is a mathematical procedure, not a physical wave collapsing. Please see Zeh's quote above.

## Noumenon

If my response was not correct, then which of the following do you not agree with,....?

1) A bubble chamber is a macroscopic system that promotes decoherence, not avoids it.

2) By then, decoherence has resulted in LOSS of phase coherence, and thus LOSS of the effects of the probability amplitude Interference that is characteristic of quantum behavior.

3) We don't disagree wrt macroscopic measurements.

⇒

## Noumenon

It is, molecules. But do we observe quanta in it? No. It is a macroscopic experiment, that displays macroscopic paths.

In terms of a quantum description of a electron, do you not agree with the above article findings,...

"The experiments we have performed indicate that the mere interaction of an electron with some larger physical system, such as a bath of liquid helium, does not constitute a measurement... [...]...The question then is: What does?"

## Noumenon

I don't know. It occurs extremely rapidly though, for a molecule, something like 10^-30 seconds in air,.. even faster in a bubble chamber I would think.

## Noumenon

Yes. It is certainly a valid explanation for why macroscopic behavior is emergent from quantum reality,... but by then it is macroscopic. There is no Schrödinger wave function description of the entire apparatus, and ....

..even assuming the Schrödinger wave equation represented a one-to-one correspondence with reality so that it was a Physical Wave and was known in full by an omnipresence, ...there is nothing in the equation that would make it 'collapse' into one particular value as opposed to another.

Wave-functions would entangle and decohere and lose their destructive/constructive quantum interference effects, but it would never result in a observable 'value',.. and so never a 'measurement' which by definition, quantifies into values. That requires a separate step by a intelligence,.. to project the wave-function onto a basis representation added by an intelligence.

## Noumenon

Do you disagree with the math I posted?

That is correct, "appears". Decoherence gives only the appearance of collapse. There is no mathematical mechanism in the Schrödinger equation that would allow for collapse.

Also, there is no 'value' priori to measurement. The measurement creates the value. The value is defined by the experimental apparatus and the experimenter.

If the photon is in a pure-state of a superposition of vertical and horizontal and/or L/R circular polarization, then there is no 'value'.

Yes, I agree.

## Noumenon

That's correct,... but I meant the original purpose of Zeh in introducing that idea, as Zeh promoted an extension to Everrett's many worlds interpretation which obviously seeks to avoid 'collapse'. However I may be wrong wrt the historical chronology and it's relevance to that extension, so will consider my point refuted.

## Noumenon

A) The deterministic evolution of the Schrödinger equation

B) The projection postulate (collapse).

He then outlines three components in the measurement process;

I. The quantum system under investigation

II. The physical measuring device

III. The observer

He then showed that there is no mathematical reason [Zeh explains why above] to find the 'collapse' (B) in the composite system I and II since they are both subject to (A) QM, in principal. So they can both be considered the same component, so that...

I. The quantum system under investigation plus the physical measuring device

II. The observer

III. Consciousness (mind)

Again there is no reason to suspect that component I and II above can not be combined as well, since the observer and his brain are physical systems subject to (A) as well, in principal.

⇒

## Noumenon

Although the physical basis of consciousness, the brain (II above), is certainly subject to (A) in principal, ..... consciousness is different, in that it is not itself a passive physical system, but an active intangible one, in ordering and synthesizing experience, and adding conceptual structure (why I mention Kant often). The collapse then is a collapse into concepts.

Given the above quotes from Hawking, Heisenberg, d'Espagnat, B.D. Zeh, and von Neumann's concurring conclusions, and the above article,.... would you still not concede that 'quantum interaction' cannot be all there is to measurement, but that in some way a conscious intelligence must be essential to that process?

There ARE theories with a objective collapse, ...Penrose's OR, and Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber,... but decoherence itself does not collapse the wave-function.

## Noumenon

Many people misunderstand this though as implying that consciousness somehow does something to reality.

## Whydening Gyre

It does. Enough conscience's focused on a "thing" will equal a reality. 100 monkeys.

## Da Schneib

And since this isn't observable behavior, you still haven't explained anything but the mathematical formalism.

contd

## Da Schneib

For lurkers, "off diagonal terms" cannot be realized; they are not eigenvalues, and thus can never be measured. They are, however, possible in superposition, when a particle has not yet been measured in a particular parameter.

While this is true, it has nothing to do with decoherence other than being the mathematical representation of what happens when two particles interact.

contd

## Da Schneib

Are you claiming physicists don't know what's in the bubble chamber and what state it's in?

Really?

## Da Schneib

Decoherence is directly observable with the three polarizers experiment. That experiment has been possible in schoolrooms since polarizers became cheaply available with the invention of polaroid film. I wouldn't call that "recent."

contd

## Da Schneib

As far as the three polarizers experiment, it's in Isaac Asimov's History of Physics, which is a re-printing of the original 3-volume set "Understanding Physics," published in the 1960s IIRC. I did it in grade school. It cost my whole allowance for two weeks.

contd

## Da Schneib

Your distinction appears meaningless to me; you are implying that materials exist that aren't made of quanta, or that some construction made from quanta and used as a "measuring device" magically stops behaving in a quantum manner for some reason you aren't telling me.

contd

## Da Schneib

In short, demonstrate a "non-quantum" intelligence, and then we will discuss how it can "observe." If you can't, then my point is made.

Quantum action must always add up in the end to classical action. Classical action is what we observe, because our senses are not fine enough to discern quantum action in most cases (the fully dark adapted human eye can detect single quanta). But that doesn't mean that classical action is "more real" than quantum action; merely that it is what our biased senses allow us to observe directly.

## Da Schneib

Not if you don't provide a link and quote.

## Da Schneib

The Schrödinger equation gives values; what do you mean, "it never gives values?" It gives the square root of the probability at all points and times; if you make many measurements, they will give the probability of the various outcomes that the Schrödinger equation predicts. It doesn't give single values for experiments that can have multiple outcomes, and it shouldn't. It would be inconsistent with reality if it did.

## Da Schneib

Any measuring system is such, and it doesn't matter if it's macroscopic or not. Furthermore, the macroscopic (i.e. classical) behavior of any system is determined by the individual quantum behavior of its component quanta, collectively.

contd

## Da Schneib

Actually, we do; you seem to think they are somehow "different" from quantum measurements. In fact, the classical results MUST emerge from the quantum behavior; otherwise, we haven't correctly described the quantum behavior. However, the reverse does not apply; classical behavior is a result, not a given, from the POV of any quantum theory. Whether the quantum theory is correct or not is discerned from whether it gives the observed classical results or not. This is evidence, not derivation.

## Da Schneib

You are making a distinction between "macroscopic" and "microscopic" measurements that I do not believe exists. The sum of the quantum behaviors must always be the classical, observed behavior.

I am amazed you do not think that the individual tracks of high energy particles have not been carefully examined to make sure we understood how they occur.

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Do you maintain there cannot be?

contd

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

Again, so?

No, that's not what "decoherence" means at all. Those same interference effects will happen when the next decoherence causes the next erasure.

See, this is the whole point: if you observe a value, you have decohered the quantum you observed it on, with respect to that value. Its conjugate under uncertainty is now much more indeterminate. If it's not conjugate under uncertainty, then it cannot be decohered.

But you get values if two particles interact in a parameter that is uncertain, and you later measure one of them in that parameter.

## Noumenon

2) Further, I have quoted the very man who discovered decoherence, to which you have ignored completely, ... saying that the deterministic Schrödinger equation does not allow for wave-function collapse, .....i.e. decoherence is NOT wave-function collapse.

"A dynamical collapse of the wave function would require nonlinear and non-unitary terms in the Schrödinger equation [...] Since nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation lead to observable deviations from conventional quantum theory, they should at present be disregarded for similar reasons as hidden variables." - Heinz-Dieter Zeh, the discoverer of decoherence

## Noumenon

These three points are simply facts. You may disagree with my interpretation of QM and with Hawking, Heisenberg, von Neumann, E. Wigner, Bohr, d'Espagnat wrt interpretation,... but unless you capitulate on the above three points, I don't see how we can advance the discussion further.

## Noumenon

We should therefore first determine if we agree on the above three points, as a prerequisite to any debate about whether 'quantum interaction' constitutes a 'measurement' or whether an intelligence is intrinsically involved.

Accepting the above three facts will not trap you into accepting my definition of measurement, since there are some Realist interpretations and extended theories that allow for an objective dynamical collapse of the wave-function.

## Noumenon

No it is not. It is those scientists findings given their experiment.

## Da Schneib

I'm just saying that any interaction has the potential to create it, which is why particles that are entangled- i.e., that have a parameter that is in superposition on both particles, the final values of which must be identical or complementary under the applicable conservation law- must be isolated from interaction or the entanglement is lost. No "observer" is needed; just interaction with other particles is enough. And these interactions are "measurements," as you're defining them; they decohere the state of the particle they happen to, but without anyone ever seeing it happen.

contd

## Da Schneib

Some quantum numbers (i.e. parameters) are never in superposition; for example, electric charge. For example, lepton or quark count. I get the feeling you think all quantum numbers are uncertain, and this is not correct.

## Da Schneib

You can demonstrate decoherence in the three-polarizer experiment as I have been saying now for quite a while. Why have you not addressed this experiment?

contd

## Da Schneib

I repeat: Decoherence reduces the wavefunction to an eigenstate from superposition. Measurement reduces the wavefunction to an eigenstate from superposition. How are they different?

Before you write your next set of responses, please sit back and gather some perspective; I'm not attacking you, I'm at this point merely trying to understand what you're saying and make it fit with particle physics.

contd

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

There are a number of questions of mine you have not answered, and a couple of experiments you have not addressed (principally the three polarizers experiment). I'd like to see you look my posts and yours over again and see if you think you have answered all my questions. I have not read all yours yet; I have been busy, and didn't want to leave you feeling cut off, so I answered as many as I got to so far. I'm likely to be busy for another couple weeks, with Thanksgiving and a bunch of other RL stuff, but I'll do as much as I can.

contd

## Da Schneib

We'll have to argue that later after we agree on what decoherence is.

## Da Schneib

I think we're closer together on this than you seem to. But I also think you've got a conception of "measurement" that isn't quite right, and the same of "decoherence," which is not surprising since the two are entangled, hee hee.

## Noumenon

No, you have actively denied this,...

and,...

## Noumenon

Because, [apart from interpretations] the mathematical foundation of QM requires the projection postulate, (collapse of the wave-function), as a separate mathematical element,.... whilst the Schrödinger equation alone does not provide a mathematical mechanism for collapse. Since decoherence is only operative mathematically via the deterministic Schrödinger equation, there is no actual collapse involved in decoherence.

⇒

## Noumenon

This will require you to no longer describe decoherence in terms of eigenstates and eigenvalues, as this implies collapse of the wavefunction, which is not only inaccurate, but is putting the cart before the horse given our 'what constitutes a measurement' discussion.

It will also require you to agree with #1 above,.... that decoherence results in loss of phase coherence, and thus loss of interference terms, effects of which are characteristic of quantum behavior, and so loss of quantum behavior into macro behavior.

[Now, the latter is not to deny that the underlying physics of macroscopic objects is really quantum,... it is only that the loss of interference terms causes the loss of the strangeness that is characteristic of QM.]

## Noumenon

I did, and asked if you agreed with the probability calculations.

The decoherence that occurs in that polarizer experiment is inferred to have happened already, qualitatively, as in 'it gave the appearance of wave-function collapse'.

However, it is not an example of a quantitative experimental demonstration of decoherence. This would require #3 above, mesoscopic objects as a possible transition from quantum behavior to loss of interference term effects associated with quantum behavior.

Do you agree with #1, #2, #3, and that decoherence is NOT wave-function collapse in terms of the mathematical foundation of QM?

## imido

Nov 25, 2014## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

Their interference effects continue to be seen in the conjugate parameter(s). They don't stop being quanta. Uncertainty means that when a wavefunction "collapses" the wavefunction of the conjugate parameter de-collapses, so the quantum behavior is always there, just not in the particular parameter you measured.

One parameter (i.e. one wavefunction) is not a particle. A particle has many parameters, and some of them are dual under uncertainty to one another. Those that are can be in superposition. Those that are not cannot. A whole particle does not undergo "wavefunction collapse;" that's impossible.

I don't see how this is inconsistent with the definition of decoherence.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

I've just shown that when one parameter undergoes "wavefunction collapse," another is rendered uncertain. Are you saying you think that when particles collide their positions are not determined by the position of the collision, just because we're not looking? We know that's wrong. It doesn't make any sense. Their positions are determined, and their momenta become uncertain (if they were known before).

contd

## Da Schneib

Let's try this: I will describe the effect of decoherence on the dual slit experiment, and we'll see if you agree.

When the particle can go through two slits, its position is indeterminate. Therefore, its momentum is certain, and therefore, it creates interference fringes. However, if the position (i.e. the welcher weg information, IOW which slit it went through) is known, then the momentum is uncertain, and the fringes are smeared out and no longer visible.

contd

## Da Schneib

You are looking only at one parameter; you've forgotten that measuring that parameter implies something about another parameter, due to uncertainty conjugation. The wavefunction only describes a single parameter, at least the way you're talking about it. There are actually two wavefunctions dependent upon each other; and the fact that one has an eigenvalue means the other cannot; it has been decohered. That's what decoherence is.

But the strangeness doesn't "disappear;" it pops up in the conjugate parameter (and if there is no conjugate parameter then that parameter cannot be "strange" in the way you mean). That's uncertainty.

contd

## Da Schneib

As I said, you didn't understand decoherence. Now you will, if you accept the above. If not we can talk about it a while more.

## Da Schneib

contd

## Da Schneib

Wavefunction collapse of one parameter decoheres its conjugate parameter. That's what decoherence is.

I completely disagree. It exactly demonstrates decoherence of the spin on the orthogonal axis.

contd

## Da Schneib

So your definition of decoherence is wrong; the loss of the superposition is not decoherence. It's the loss of the eigenvalue of the conjugate parameter that is decoherence. So much for #1.

BTW, I owe you an apology; I should have been thinking better, if I had I'd've caught your error instead of duplicating it myself. It's been quite a while since I had someone who knew enough about this stuff to be worth talking to about it! So this has been very helpful for me.

contd

## Da Schneib

#3 is incorrect; the three polarizers experiment shows decoherence of the spin on the orthogonal axis.

Now, let's see where that takes us.

First of all, it's now clear that decoherence happens only to quantum numbers that are conjugate under uncertainty. Second, it's clear that every measurement of a conjugate parameter causes decoherence of the conjugate.

Do you agree with this?

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

I don't know that I have attempted to apply it to either a eigenstate 'parameter' or it's 'conjugate parameter', as I reject the view that decoherence is measurement to begin with.

I have referred to the Hilbert Space representation, which after-all can not be of both (x and p) at once; The Hilbert Space representation is always of the 'parameter', never the 'conjugate parameter'..... as you would need to apply a Fourier transform to go from the 'parameter' (x space) to the 'conjugate parameter' (p space),... but then it just becomes the 'parameter' (p space) at that point, and the x-space is then referred to as the 'conjugate parameter'.

Now, I don't know that decoherence can not refer to the 'conjugate parameter', as it is a Fourier transform and so just a mathematical duel space,... but this would be a flip-floppy through the back door, way of speaking,... (wait for it...)

## Noumenon

Sorry, you have it backwards. I know this is infuriating and I'm not trying to a d$ck either,...

I know the word 'Coherence' would lead one to think that it is to refer to an eigenstate, so that 'Decoherence' would then appear to be what happens to the conjugate parameter,... however, this is to misunderstand the terminology....

⇒

## Da Schneib

When you see "parameter" think quantum number. When I refer to conjugation I mean under uncertainty unless I say otherwise (there are other conjugations in the SM). For example, position is conjugate to momentum; spin on one axis is conjugate to spin on all other axes; energy is conjugate to time. That's the uncertainty principle.

contd

## Noumenon

A superposition of eigenstates refers to a coherent wave-function. The 'coherent terms' are the off-diagonal phase terms of the density matrix that are responsible for interference, that I mentioned in my definition. Decoherence is loss of those terms,... diagonalization of the density matrix,... loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles,... loss of quantum interference.

"...a coherent quantum state vector is produced, corresponding to the linear superposition of the state vector of a decayed atom and the state vector of an intact atom. [...] The coherence of a suitably prepared state vector turns out to be extremely fragile - interaction with a few photons or atoms can quickly result in a loss of phase correlation,..." - Jim Baggott [2004]

"By the analogy with coherence in other wave phenomena, a superposed state can be referred to as a coherent superposition." - Wiki

## Da Schneib

Decoherence doesn't even exist in your representation; you ignore the conjugate parameter, which is what gets decohered.

contd

## Da Schneib

And you're only talking about one representation of one quantum number, and ignoring its conjugate.

This will probably be my last reply for a bit, when my wife gets home we start cooking. If she gets stuck in traffic I might get in a few more but if I disappear, then have a happy Thanksgiving (or whatever, eat well anyway)!

## Da Schneib

But I'm not saying that at all. The conjugate quantum number might not previously have been in an eigenstate, in which case there's no change; but if it was in an eigenstate, it isn't any more.

contd

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

What I meant by my response is that Decoherence applies to The Wavefunction, whatever the Hilbert Space representation is supposed to be,.... so not to the Fourier transformed, conjugate wavefunction in particular.

Because of this confusion in the term 'coherence' and therefore 'decoherence', I will hold-off on accepting that you concede that 'decoherence is not measurement',... as you may change your mind if you concur with the generally accepted wording that a coherent wavefunction is a linear superposition of states (not all necessarily eignestates btw), and that decoherence refers to this superpostion wavefunction.

## Noumenon

It may be best to read through all my posts before replying, because I had already responded to this point. I am saying that decoherence applies to The Wavefucntion, irrespective of representation, so I can not accept that it is the 'conjugate parameter, which is what gets decohered'.

I will offline for a few days as well. Enjoy your thanksgiving!!

["and that decoherence refers to this superpostion wavefunction",..... in terms of the loss of it's off-diagonal components]

## Noumenon

The Hilbert space representation takes that into account given that the Dirac delta function has a legitimate Fourier transform. The Dirac delta function would represent a particular eigenvalue, which when Fourier transformed, results in a superposition of an infinite number of eigenstates.

## Noumenon

The Hilbert space formulation of QM always ensures that a eigenstate vector (one congruent with a basis vector), ...becomes a superposition of basis vectors in the conjugate representation. The Fourier transform changes from one representation space to the other.

## Noumenon

David Hilbert developed Hilbert space as a generalization of vector calculus. He used Fourier analysis to do this.

In vector calculus, a vector can have an arbitrary direction. The vector has components and is a linear superposition of those components or 'amounts' of the axis (basis vectors), ... x, y, z, that make up an orthogonal set. The vector can be projected ('collapsed') onto an axis (basis vector), say x, to obtain the 'amount' of x that is in the vector, or rather the amount of the vector that is congruent with x.

⇒

## Noumenon

In Hilbert space, the 'vector' is generalized,... it is now a wavefunction that can have an arbitrary shape.

Fourier analysis allows one to take an arbitrarily shaped wave-form and decompose it into it's component waves, ....a bunch of pure waves, ....that are sin and cos functions**.

Each of these sin/cos functions represent a basis vector (axis), an orthogonal set, .....that may be infinite in number, so an infinite number of 'axis'.

The wavefunction is a linear superposition of these. The wavefunction can be projected (collapsed) onto a particular basis vector (usually a eigenstate), to obtain the 'amount' (eigenvalue) of the sin/cos pure wave (basis vector) that is in the wavefunction.

** usually in QM it is in terms of complex exponentials because of it's relation to sin/cos in the Euler identity, and the need for Hermitian operators.

⇒

## Noumenon

Fourier analysis allows different representations (conjugate in qm), say of frequency, or amplitude, or position, or momentum,... that can be transformed into each other. A coefficient (eigenvalue) of a basis vector (eigenstate) in one representation becomes a linear superposition of basis vector coefficients in the other representation, and vice versa.

In general any wavefunction or basis vector can be projected onto any other wavefunction or basis vector, inner product. (The inner product of two basis vectors would be zero given the orthogonal requirement). The basis vectors don't have to be eigenstates (observable).

John von Neumann took this idea and formulated the mathematical foundation of QM in a consistent and complete way.

## Whydening Gyre

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

I regard eigenvalues to be macroscopically derived 'conceptual values' that humans conform reality to, in an artificial way. Independent of measurement by intelligence there are no 'conceptual values'. The measurement, that is the apparatus design, creates the 'values', that were not present before hand.

This is why decoherence and 'quantum interaction' does not constitute a 'measurement', and decoherence can't be wave-function collapse unless there is a mathematical term that accomplishes this in particular, as pointed out by the man who discovered decoherence, H.D. Zeh.

Btw, we can pick up where we left off when you are ready, so the above several posts can be ignored, and are just to prevent the thread from expiring,.... unless you're finished.

## Noumenon

2) The deterministic Schrödinger equation does not allow for wave-function collapse (except for modified theory, by adding terms specifically to accommodate this), .....i.e. decoherence is NOT wave-function collapse.

3) Decoherence is not ubiquitous in experiments generally (in terms of quantitatively observing it). This is of course because decoherence is loss of quantum behavior into macro behavior. Observing decoherence occurring experimentally, ....(that is quantitatively as opposed to giving a qualitative description of appearances),... requires mesoscopic objects of the order between micro and macro. Such experiments were conducted only relatively recently.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

QED.