Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism

Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism
Two-slit experiment. Inset shows a typical interference pattern obtained by assuming ψAB = ψA + ψB. Credit: Source: R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120406 (2014).
(Phys.org) —The Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, published in 1926 by Erwin Schrödinger, may be the most widely-known metaphorical explanation of quantum superposition and collapse. (Superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics stating that a physical system – such as a photon or electron – simultaneously exists partly in all theoretically possible states; but when measured or observed gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible states.)

That being said, the earlier foundational has the advantage of being, well, an actual experiment that provides a window into this often counterintuitive realm. (As a somewhat surprising aside, while the Michelson–Morley experiment, published in 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley, demonstrated temporal coherence, a much earlier device – Thomas Young's 1803 double-slit interferometer – demonstrated spatial coherence, contradicting Newtonian physics a century before quantum mechanics and special relativity by showing that light, like sound, was also a wave motion.) Despite its long legacy, however, the double-slit experiment remains the subject of research. One such focus is a curious discrepancy: The Schrödinger (yes, the same Schrödinger) equation, or wavefunction– which describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time – when both slits are open differs slightly from the sum of the wavefunctions with the two slits alternately open. The problem is that the three alternatives (slits A and B, slit A, slit B) correspond to separate boundary conditions – equations that specify the behavior of the solution to a system of differential equations at the boundary of that system's domain – meaning that superposition does not apply.

Recently, however, scientists at the Raman Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Science, both in Bangalore, India, theoretically resolved this paradox by quantifying nonclassical path contributions in quantum interference experiments using the Feynman path integral formalism, which involves an integration over all possible paths that can be taken by the particle through the two slits, thereby calculating a quantum amplitude by replacing the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinite number of possible trajectories. This allows them to replace the approximate wavefunction with both slits open (ψAB = ψA + ψB) with an integral that includes both the classical paths – the nearly straight paths from the source to the detector through either slit – and the nonclassical, or looped, paths that make a small but finite contribution to the total intensity at the detector screen (ψAB = ψA + ψB + ψL).

In so doing, they successfully quantified the effect of such nonclassical paths in interference experiments, which in turn quantifies the deviation from the common but incorrect application of the in different possible experimental conditions. Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant. They therefore propose simple three-slit interference experiments to directly confirm their existence.

Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism
Path integrals in a lab. The green line demonstrates a representative classical path. The purple line demonstrates a representative nonclassical path. The various length parameters are marked; d designates the interslit distance, w designates the slit width, h designates the slit height, L designates the distance from the source to the slit plane, and D designates the distance from the slit plane to the detector plane. Source: R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120406 (2014).

Prof. Urbasi Sinha, Raman Research Institute and Prof. Aninda Sinha, Indian Institute of Science discussed the paper that they and their co-authors published in Physical Review Letters. One of their main challenges was at the heart of their research: using the Feynman path integral formalism to quantify contributions from nonclassical paths to provide a measurable deviation from naive applications of the superposition principle. "In order to isolate the effect of the nonclassical paths we used the Sorkin parameter as proposed by Rafael D. Sorkin1," Aninda tells Phys.org. "Originally this parameter was proposed to test the Born rule, but it turned out to be a useful way to isolate the contribution of the curved paths." The Born rule (published by Max Born in his 1926 paper2) is a law of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a given result. "In addition, an earlier classical simulation of the Maxwell's equations3 led us into thinking about the problem in the realm of quantum mechanics."

Of equal import to the scientists – and a challenge that lies ahead of them, as well as to those researchers who respond to their proposal – is presenting a direct experimental demonstration for the existence of these nonclassical paths. "The nonclassical paths have always existed – the path integral formalism requires one to take into account the contribution from all possible paths," Urbasi explains. "However, these paths always tend to have contributions secondary to those from the classically dominant paths that extremize the action." This occurs in accordance with the action principle, which states that a particular functional of all paths that a particle can take between two points is extremized along the correct classical solution. "Thus, in spite of being present, the contribution to a certain propagator tends to be much smaller than the one from the classically dominant ones," Urbasi adds.

"This is what makes an experimental demonstration challenging," Urbasi continues, "since it requires a signal-to-noise ratio high enough to enable a non-zero measurement of a parameter known as kappa (κ) – the normalized version of the Sorkin parameter – as a function of detector position. Having said that, the path integral formalism enabled us to use the kappa symmetry to our advantage: Because it ensures that it is non-zero only in the presence of nonclassical paths, and zero otherwise, it provides a precise and convincing demonstration of the presence of these nonclassical paths."

Moving forward, Urbasi notes that using nonclassical path effects to model possible decoherence mechanisms in interferometer-based quantum computing applications is a direction the scientists wish to investigate in the near future. "Any quantum simulation which appeals to the phenomenon of interference should benefit from our approach – and regarding quantum computing itself, an interferometer-based quantum computing architecture immediately comes to mind. Our work highlights and suggests an experimental proposal to quantify non classical paths in interference experiments and hence comments on the commonly used naive application of the superposition principle in interference experiments. If a successful experiment is performed, then that will prove our assertions. Completing the picture in so far as application of the superposition principle in interference phenomena is concerned should definitely have ramifications in situations where interference is used as a resource."

Other areas of research will benefit from their study, Urbasi says, because their work gives them a more complete understanding of slit-based interference. "Richard Feynman famously said that 'the double-slit experiment has in it the heart of . In reality, it contains the only mystery.4' Therefore, a more complete understanding there will be useful in all areas where interference is considered a resource. These include interferometer-based quantum computing protocols as well as observational radio astronomy data related to the early universe. In fact," Aninda points out, referring to the potential role of Feynman's path integral formalism and thereby looped nonclassical paths in the effort to construct a unified theory of quantum gravity, "there have been recent proposals in the cosmology literature which deal with a potential modification to the Born rule. For such modifications to be experimentally testable one will need precision calculation such as ours."


Explore further

Duality principle is 'safe and sound': Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality

More information: Nonclassical Paths in Quantum Interference Experiments, Physical Review Letters 113, 120406: Published 19 September 2014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120406

Related:

1Quantum Mechanics As Quantum Measure Theory, Modern Physics Letters A 09, 3119 (1994), doi:10.1142/S021773239400294X (Earlier PDF version: arXiv:gr-qc/9401003v2)

2Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge, Max Born, Zeitschrift für Physik, 37, #12 (Dec. 1926), pp. 863–867 (German); English translation, On the quantum mechanics of collisions, in Quantum theory and measurement, Section I.2, J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press (Paperback Edition, July 14, 2014), ISBN-13: 978-0691613161

3Analysis of multipath interference in three-slit experiments, Physical Review A 85, 012101 (4 January 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.012101

4The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat (October 4, 2011), Chapter 37 (Quantum Behavior), page 37-2 (An experiment with bullets). Paperback ISBN-13: 978-0465024933 | Online

© 2014 Phys.org

Citation: Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism (2014, October 2) retrieved 17 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-superposition-revisited-resolution-double-slit-paradox.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3461 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 02, 2014
If the fundamental basics of the makeup of matter and energy in the universe following these principles. Only the potential of something exist before it's observation. The universe was only a possibility and didn't exist until the very instant an organism developed the ability to observe it. Spooky action at a distance indeed!

Oct 02, 2014
The second figure in this article is wrong. Here is the right figure:
http://journals.a...2/medium

Oct 02, 2014
There was the Bose (Bose Einstein) statistics define probabilities at quantum levels differently than the standard basyian statistics. Plus it would be practically impossible to have exact identical slits.
So, I doubt if the basis for any experiment is the PRESUMED statistics than the results cannot be used to deduce the truth as it should be.

smd
Oct 02, 2014
Thank you, Pavel. (Actually, they were both wrong and have been corrected.)

Oct 02, 2014
Doesn't this violate the mid-point rule and the principle of least action?

It also appears to violate conservation of angular momentum, since the photon would be arriving at it's final location from a different angle and along a curved path compared to where it started, without any obvious exchange of momenta taking place.

Oct 02, 2014
didn't exist until the very instant an organism developed the ability to observe it.


In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.

The interaction of everything with everything basically produces some consistent version of how things are be based on the laws that govern how they can be, but until that happens things can be any way they please.

In my opinion, since quantum mechanics allows the history of a thing to change based on how it interacts in the future, and every interaction is quantum in nature, it's quite plausible that the whole history is actually continuously changing in a way that it's consistent with itself and the future just like the photon that assumes a certain path once it's observed to take it, but not before. As our "light horizon" grows and new stuff comes into interaction with our observable universe, everything we did changes to satisfy the causality.

Oct 02, 2014
Forty-some years since I first studied this double-slit experiment, but trying to grasp it *still* makes my head hurt...

Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2014
In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.


In that case, the cat is dead as soon as the particle strikes the Geiger counter and sets off the cascade of events leading to the release of the poison regardless of whether or not anyone looks in the box.

Does the cat's prospective matter in this? Is it aware it is still alive? I assume it can't know it is dead.

If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body? Do the cockroaches feasting on my corpse count?

Oct 03, 2014
Doesn't this violate the mid-point rule and the principle of least action?
"Least action" is defined under the path integral approach as the shortest path; the path integral approach notes that this is not the *only* path possible, and it is the sum of the paths that defines the path integral. Note also that the shortest path is also the average of all possible paths.

It also appears to violate conservation of angular momentum, since the photon would be arriving at it's final location from a different angle and along a curved path compared to where it started, without any obvious exchange of momenta taking place.
The momentum is offset by an opposite path.

The path integral approach defines a "particle" as the collection of all possible paths a classical particle could take. It's not a little ball.

BTW, good questions. I gave you 5.

Oct 03, 2014
Forty-some years since I first studied this double-slit experiment, but trying to grasp it *still* makes my head hurt...
Feynman said it's the most important experiment in the history of physics. A lot of people think he's right.

If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body? Do the cockroaches feasting on my corpse count?
Einstein asked the same question about the Moon if nobody's looking at it.

smd
Oct 03, 2014
If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body?
Einstein asked the same question about the Moon if nobody's looking at it.


Don't forget Kant and falling trees...
http://blog.oup.c...quantum/

Oct 03, 2014
In quantum mechanics, "observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, but merely the interaction with the rest of stuff - causality.


I wish this point was made more often... the "observer" concept has often been very confusing because of the connotation that an observer must be a biological creature or a collection of atoms that makes up a measuring device. As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms... as if the same collection of atoms was re-arranged so it wasn't a human eye or a measuring stick add wouldn't collapse wave forms.


Oct 03, 2014
In that case, the cat is dead as soon as the particle strikes the Geiger counter and sets off the cascade of events leading to the release of the poison regardless of whether or not anyone looks in the box.


True.

The question of the Shrödiger's cat is whether the randomly emitted particle hits the detector or not - not whether the cat dies as a result.

If the trap is triggered, the cat is dead. If it wasn't triggered, the cat is alive. The trick is that neither possibility has to be true before the box is opened, so neither is - or rather both are until the box is opened and the interaction with the rest of the universe stops the roulette wheel and decides whether the cat died or not.

QM suggests that anything that isn't presently interacting with the rest is essentially "free".
In principle, as long as we haven't opened the box, the cat in the perfectly isolating box could be anything. Once we open the box, there has to have been a cat in there all along.


Oct 03, 2014
There's a perfectly good metaphysical rationale to this.

If you have something that you can't see, can't touch, can get no information out of, it can be said to not exist. If removing said thing from reality makes no difference whatsoever, it didn't exist in the first place because the only way you can make no difference is if you change exactly nothing.

So the perfectly isolating box in the thought experiment is a device that actually removes stuff from our reality, because it stops it from making a difference. In essence, by putting the cat in the box we destroy it - so also by opening the box we create the cat in the box anew and decide whether it had died or not. Whatever happened in the box isn't determined in the box, but outside the box.

The same should be true for imperfectly isolating boxes, where the aspects that aren't coupled to the outside reality are free. If a cat went in, a rabbit cannot come out, because the box isn't causally isolating, but the cat may have died.

Oct 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 03, 2014
https://www.physi....697647/

Further reading in an attempt to understand the research noted in the Physorg article here from a different approach other than Feynman formalism.

Two take-away messages for me.
1.) A universal wave function where everything is entangled or if correctly interpreted:
In principle, as long as we haven't opened the box, the cat in the perfectly isolating box could be anything. - E


2.) Time is QM emergent .

Further reading link is informative (physics forum from June 18, 2013.)


Oct 03, 2014
Path Superposition Vs Entanglement Superposition
Same physics forum author.
https://www.physi....733119/

14 January, 2014

Recommended;
All "similar threads" to Path Superposition Vs Entanglement Superposition.
Wonderful Forums.

Oct 04, 2014
..."observation" doesn't mean observation by a living thing, ..


I wish this point was made more often... the "observer" concept has often been very confusing because of the connotation that an observer must be a biological creature or a collection of atoms that makes up a measuring device. As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms...


But there IS a fundamental difference between a conscious observer and a measuring device. It is why there is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function, and the state-reduction, or collapse of the wave-function, upon a measurement. Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.

You could in principal treat another observer (the physicist cat) as just a quantum system and describe the entire interacting systems with a wave-function,.. but then, You as the conscious observer are back to square one.

Oct 04, 2014
Where do the other wave-function components go, all the other possible states, upon an observation? Decoherence does not explane it apart from appearance. Some say the wave-function does not collapse but continues deterministically by spitting off into "many-worlds". But this does not explain why we are conscious of a consistent world, and in any case enters into metaphysics.

The distinction between conscious observation and a measuring apparatus considered as a quantum system on to itself, is that we imploy Concepts that don't themselves have a independent existence,.... the wave-function is a collapse into concepts. Reality is made to conformed to our a-priori concepts, not the other way around.

Oct 04, 2014
If I have a heart attack and die tonight, am I still semi-alive until someone discovers my body?


Don't forget Kant and falling trees...
http://blog.oup.c...quantum/


The wave-function itself should not be mistaken as a physical wave. Such an attitude leads to metaphysics,... as science is ONLY based on observation which means defacto collapse of the wave-function. Phenomenal reality, the realm of science, necessarily has a component that is mind dependent. We can't get out of our own intellectual way to 'observe' as a quantum system.

Kant's epistemology provides the reason for the quantum weirdness imo. A student of Luis De'Broglie, ....Bernard d'Espagnat draws the same conclusion as Kant except through more physical arguments.

Oct 04, 2014
,... my review of this book and further points on this is here.

Oct 04, 2014
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp...p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant ... may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

Oct 05, 2014
You could in principal treat another observer (the physicist cat) as just a quantum system and describe the entire interacting systems with a wave-function,.. but then, You as the conscious observer are back to square one.


Why?

The observer IS a quantum system just as the observed system, and when they come together their wavefunctions simply join. The mutual state they assume is then internally consistent regardless of the state they're in.

So the scientists has observed both a dead cat and a living cat, until another person joins in and observes what the observation was... and so forth. The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened.

The fact that the event can flip from "dead cat" to "alive cat" at any point in the future will be invisible to any concious or non-concious observer because their history changes with it.

Oct 05, 2014
We must use "life" to make any inference. Thus, to use "life" to state otherwise is complete hypocrisy. Did you get that?


No. Your assertion appears to be nonsensical. Deconstructing your sentence to plain english gives:

"We must use 'life' to reach any conclusion about something from known facts or evidence"

I don't understand what this means, or how it would result in hypocricy.

Oct 05, 2014
We must use "life" to make any inference.


Though maybe you didn't mean to use quotation marks to mean the word "life", but instead intended to say that we need to be alive to make any inference, which is a tautology. We are alive and make inferences, therefore by definition we have to be alive to make inferences - otherwise we wouldn't be us. Get it?

That doesn't mean something else has to be alive to come to conclusions about things. For example, a robot that is programmed to take in facts and make conclusions about them isn't alive, yet it's perfectly capable of making an observation in the same sense as the scientist who opens the Shrödiger's box and says "Yep, it's dead".

That's because "observation" reduces to taking in information from another system and turning it into some behaviour according to the information gained. People do it just as rocks or atoms do it.

If you think observation requires something more, you're appealing to the supernatural and mystical.

Oct 05, 2014
The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened.


Yes correct, that is called decoherence. However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable, b) decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum. But we don't have an issue with the classical realm, so this side steps the question....

Oct 05, 2014
Sub: Cosmic Vision of the Universe: Wake Up
Scientists must ponder over to comprehend Dimensional Knowledge Base
http://cosmologyv...cal.html
Super imposion of this matrix has been presented by me at COSPAR2013
Vidyardhi Nanduri [Space cosmology-independant Research]

Oct 05, 2014
.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat, why can't we observe the entire wave-function, why does it collapse upon a measurement with all other possibilities vanishing? (Why the incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the state-vector and it's non-deterministic projection onto an observable basis?)

An omnipotent quantum-physicist could observe a classical-physicist observing a quantum system and see no essential difference between the classical-physicist's mind, body and experimental apparatus and the quantum system being observed by him. The omnipotent quantum-physicist can see the entire wave-function.

Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.

Oct 05, 2014
However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable


That's a pretty big non-sequitur. If the concious observer isn't a quantum system like everything else, then what is it? A magical soul somehow exempt from the rules of nature?

I don't understand your problem.

decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum


Yes, and this is a problem because?

The internal constraints of a large quantum system force it to behave more than less in a classical way with respect to itself. We still know it's quantum just the same as you aren't fooled to think the pixels on your screen don't exist just because you're too far away to see them apart.


Oct 05, 2014
That's' a dismissal use of "tautology".


That was the point. It's dismissing your argument as circular of itself.

By saying this you imply that because something is proved real it doesn't matter.


No. I was directly pointing out that you didn't manage to prove anything.

Oct 05, 2014
the question.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat


Because they are mutually exclusive possibilities.

Think about it this way. If you sit in the box that is isolated from the rest of the universe to watch the cat, there isn't one you that sees the cat dead or alive, but a superposition of a you that sees the cat alive and a you that sees the cat dead, because you and the cat are the same quantum system. Neither is aware of any other possibility. In each version, the contents of your brain are different, so your observation of the situation is different, and when the box is opened only one you walks out.

Which one depends on what constraints the rest of the universe puts on you, so it's the whole of reality that decides whether you saw the cat die.

There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so, so there cannot be a third version of you that observes such a zombie cat.


Oct 05, 2014
There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so


Or better put: physically meaningless to be so. There is no such state of being as "dead-alive" state.

why does it collapse upon a measurement with all other possibilities vanishing?


It doesn't, really. The larger quantum system still contains numerous possibilities in superposition. Each possibility is just not aware of the others, so in each of these realities the world seems to behave in a single determined manner - at least on the large scale of it.

Oct 05, 2014
Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.


But that's just semantics. Are you seriously arguing that quantum mechanics can't work like it does because you understand some word slightly differently?

"Observation" in quantum mechanics is defined as exchange of information between quantum systems, approximately speaking, and should not be confused with any definitions of the world that assume a concious observer.

That isn't to say that it is exactly what "observation" means, but exactly what quantum phycisists mean when they say "observation".

smd
Oct 05, 2014
Perhaps it would be help to point out that (1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death, and (4) quantum events are a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of spacetime.

Therefore, IMO DavidW is making a completely incoherent and thinly-guised religious argument that (a) elevates "truth" to an axiomatic foundation reminiscent of "faith" and (b) makes quantum reality dependent upon human consciousness, which as per point 4 above is patently absurd.

Oct 05, 2014
However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable

That's a pretty big non-sequitur. If the conscious observer isn't a quantum system like everything else, then what is it? A magical soul somehow exempt from the rules of nature?


I did not deny that a conscious observer is itself a complex quantum system like all other such systems.

Oct 05, 2014
decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum


Yes, and this is a problem because?

The internal constraints of a large quantum system force it to behave more than less in a classical way with respect to itself. We still know it's quantum..:


This is what I just stated and explained why it's a problem for you if you expect it to resolve the "measurement problem", to equate "observation" with "interaction".

Oct 05, 2014
the question.... which is why can't the cat observer in the box observe both live and dead cat


Because they are mutually exclusive possibilities. [....]

There is no possibility of a "dead-alive" cat because it would be physically impossible for it to be so, so there cannot be a third version of you that observes such a zombie cat


What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand. A quantum system is described as a superposition of all possibilities.

Oct 05, 2014
Our minds evolved to function in the classical realm however with mind dependent conditions [a-priori intellectual faculties,]... limiting what "observable" itself even means. In QM there are observable states and there are also non-observable states. Why? Because "classical observation" is not quantum interaction.


But that's just semantics. Are you seriously arguing that quantum mechanics can't work like it does because you understand some word slightly differently?


No, you can replace "observation" with "measurement" in everything I posted above,.. they are typically used interchangeably. I am referring to what is known as "the measurement problem".

Which as I stated above, is the "collapse of the wave-function" upon a measurement. Sure, you can explain it away by mumbling about unobservable multi-realities, but this only begs the question once again and has zero bearing on a particular measurement.

Oct 05, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.

Oct 05, 2014
That a conscious observer is himself a quantum system, does not imply that mind itself operates on quantum principals. If this were so, we would not view QM as non-intuitive.

The equipment used in experiments is an extension of the conditions imposed by the conscious observer operating classically, in it's design. For example, locality, counterfactuality, space, time, casualty, are from qm perspective, artificial constraints, but necessary for macroscopic equipment and the minds that designed them.

Oct 05, 2014
What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand. A quantum system is described as a superposition of all possibilities.


I corrected: physically meaningless state.

A system we define as "alive" has distinct properties from a system we define as dead. These properties exist regardless of us. We simpy identify them and give them a name. Now, when "alive" is defined as having opposite properties to "dead", then they are mutually exclusive. Where would you go for example, if you were physically travelling left and right at the same time? No such state can be observed because any such state would be self-contradictory - instead, a particle that is said to be in superposition of travelling left and right is always observed to travel in one direction.

And if you were travelling with the particle, you would only observe going in one direction.

Oct 05, 2014
(3) does not follow from (1)(2).


They're all premises, not conclusions.

This is what I just stated and explained why it's a problem for you if you expect it to resolve the "measurement problem", to equate "observation" with "interaction".


What exactly do you think the measurement problem is?

That a conscious observer is himself a quantum system, does not imply that mind itself operates on quantum principals. If this were so, we would not view QM as non-intuitive.


Non-sequitur.

There's nothing inherent in a mind that would force it to "intuitively" understand its own operation. Intuitiveness has nothing to do with the matter anyhow because reality does not have to conform to our expectations, and our expectations do not have to conform to reality.

smd
Oct 05, 2014
Eikka,

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

>> You erroneously impute sequential dependence where none exists. These are a series of independent points. The only conclusion was that concerning DavidW's arguments.

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

>> Incorrect in certain cases:
http://www.scienc...9190194I

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.

Oct 05, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.


>> Incorrect in certain cases:
http://www.scienc...9190194I


It is already implied that a wave-function is an interference of probability amplitudes, which is why some states get ruled out, in destructive interference. We're talking about the "collapse of the wave function" upon a measurement. This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment, as in Decoherence,.... as there is NO collapsing wave-function in decoherence,... there is no break from deterministic evolution of the state.

Oct 05, 2014
This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment


Why not?

If the environment is yet another wavefunction that behaves according to the same rules as the first one, which is already an interference of probability amplitudes, then the measurement is simply adding more interference. It's not qualitively different from what the wavefunction already is before the measurement.

The fact that the wavefunction seems to collapse must then be simply due to the destructive interference of the local universe ruling out more states until there's just one left - or - we might exist in a many world scenario where many possible states are still in superposition but in each state we're only experiencing that particular one.

These two scenarios don't rule out each other either, because information doesn't propagate at infinite speed. Some details can remain indeterminate locally until something else requires them to pick a state.


Oct 05, 2014
What can you mean by "mutually exclusive possibilities" and "physically impossible", except only in relation to mind dependent observation? It begs the question at hand....


A system we define as "alive" has distinct properties from a system we define as dead. These properties exist regardless of us. We simpy identify them and give them a name. Now, when "alive" is defined as having opposite properties to "dead", then they are mutually exclusive.


Yes, you can have dual Hilbert spaces where one is the Fourier transform of the other. This would mean that the two spaces of possible observable vales are mutually exclusive. You can have a position basis OR a momentum basis,... but not both at the same time in the same experiment. In addition the experimental design supplies the Hilbert basis to start with.

Upon a measurement the wave-function of possible Position states OR possible Momentum states is Collapsed into a value, and begins to evolve anew.

Oct 05, 2014
This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment


Why not?

If the environment is yet another wavefunction that behaves according to the same rules as the first one, which is already an interference of probability amplitudes, then the measurement is simply adding more interference.


It's different because in decoherence, where the wave-function leaks into the experimental equipment and or the environment, all the information is retained, and it is deterministic. If the wave-function were a substantive physical wave, it would be observable as such and be deterministic.

In contrast during a measurement there is information loss once a observable value is obtained,... the wave-function takes a non-smooth jump to the observable basis value, then starts its evolution over.

Also, in an actual experiment the decoherence is controlled, which is to say multiple measurements made before it becomes a disturbing factor.

Oct 05, 2014
Yes, you can have dual Hilbert spaces where...


Or we could use a more plain example in a case where the combination of two possibilities IS actually physically meaningful, to illustrate the point.

I'm assuming you're familiar with the macroscopic superposition experiment where they put a small lever to oscillate in two different directions simultaneously.

A lever can oscillate in an up-down direction, or in a left-right direction, or both simultaneously. The first state makes the lever's motion occupy space in a vertical plane, the second state makes it occupy a horizontal plane, and the third state makes it occupy a circular (conical) shape.

But the quantum superposition of the first two states does not produce the third state even though the combination of the two is physically meaningful. It makes the motion of the lever occupy a cross-shaped space. If one tries to measure which state it is, it collapses within the cross, and not in the cone.

(--->)

Oct 05, 2014
(---->)

Of course such a lever could make more complex figures, but that's not the main point. The point is that the superposition clearly isn't a "dead AND alive" situation even if "dead" and "alive" weren't the logical inverse of one another, but somehow the states exist independently.

What that actually means is a question of metaphysics.

smd
Oct 05, 2014
Metaphysics is the term for that which we con't yet understand or can't yet explain...and, as David HIlbert said so beautifully in his address to the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Königsberg (8 September 1930), "Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen!" ("We must know — we will know!:).
.

Oct 05, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable. The notion that the wave-function is a substantive physical wave is metaphysical. Solutions that are proposed to solve the 'measurement problem' and imply a substantive existence to the wave-function end up being metaphysical,... because they contain elements that are unobservable,.... pilot-wave,... many-worlds.

It can be explained instead by epistemology. In other words, the measurement problem and quantum strangeness in general is a symptom of a classically evolved mind applied to the quantum realm. It is not a failure of theory.

smd
Oct 06, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable.

Not observable yet: In naming ideas that have no physical ideats at the time of said naming, metaphysics creates the very situation you correctly describe - i.e., the neural basis of perception and cognition, and thereby language, evolved in a macroscopic context.

Consider the charmingly simple observation by Amanda Gefter that "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."

Oct 06, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?


Oct 06, 2014
Metaphysics also concerns statements that are made about things that are not observable.

Not observable yet: In naming ideas that have no physical ideats at the time of said naming, metaphysics creates the very situation you correctly describe - i.e., the neural basis of perception and cognition, and thereby language, evolved in a macroscopic context.

Consider the charmingly simple observation by Amanda Gefter that "Quantum field theory is a group of mathematical structures. Electrons are little stories we tell ourselves."


True, but in the case of 'many-worlds' the very idea contains within itself the impossibility of observation even in principal,... whether it is not taken literally or is just a mathematical blanket tossed over the elephant.

smd
Oct 06, 2014
True, but in the case of 'many-worlds' the very idea contains within itself the impossibility of observation even in principal,... whether it is not taken literally or is just a mathematical blanket tossed over the elephant.


Agreed re: the many-worlds interpretation - but with the following caveat: The terms "impossible" and "never" as bound to a current science, mathematics and technology, and therefore subject to invalidation when used to evaluate possible future scenarios. (The history of science and technology has repeatedly demonstrated this.) This phenomenon is yet another cognitive bias due to our evolutionary heritage. To wit,

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
- Albert Einstein

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

Oct 06, 2014
That being said, the earlier foundational double-slit experiment has the advantage of being, well, an actual experiment that provides a window into this often counterintuitive realm.
I suppose you can perform the Schrödinger s Cat experiment as an "actual experiment," but you won't learn anything new from it. Unless you liked the cat. Chuckle.

Oct 06, 2014
As if that collection of atoms somehow magically has a property that collapses wave forms... as if the same collection of atoms was re-arranged so it wasn't a human eye or a measuring stick add wouldn't collapse wave forms.
Yes.

This is the basis of "decoherence." Which, in turn, is the basis of the "consistent histories" interpretation of QM.

Oct 06, 2014
2.) Time is QM emergent .
Interesting. Please expand on this.

Oct 06, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it? Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.

Oct 06, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?
No. They are not local to the interaction that decoheres the photon. In the Feynman path integral formalism, the more unlikely the path (in classical terms), the less it contributes to the path integral; but all *possible* paths contribute *something* to it, even if they didn't happen/couldn't have happened in classical terms. This is the way that QM is different from classical mechanics, right at its heart. We don't know what happens between the point where a quantum was emitted, and the point where it was detected. We only know the beginning and end points. This is the basis of Feynman's "shut up and calculate" quote.

Good question. 5 stars.

Oct 06, 2014
Eikka, smd, well argued. Noumenon, not so much.

Oct 06, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it?


Why are you asking me this question? It was Eikka and smd's "well argued" posts that put that notion forward,... so evidently you agree with me and not them. Are you confused or did you even read the above posts?

Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.


Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?

Oct 07, 2014
From the article:

Although the researchers acknowledge that it would be difficult to create a direct experimental demonstration of the existence of these nonclassical paths, they conclude that since contributions from such paths can be significant.
Wouldn't these "non-classical paths" require the speed of light to vary?
No. They are not local to the interaction that decoheres the photon. In the Feynman path integral formalism, the more unlikely the path (in classical terms), the less it contributes to the path integral; but all *possible* paths contribute *something* to it, even if they didn't happen/couldn't have happened in classical terms. This is the way that QM is different from classical mechanics, right at its heart. We don't know what happens between the point where a quantum was emitted, and the point where it was detected. We only know the beginning and end points. This is the basis of Feynman's "shut up and calculate" quote.

Good question. 5 stars.
Thanks. And great response. 5 stars.

I get that in QM it is all about the final measurements and not the unseen action. But supposing the possible paths were manipulated in different ways, would you get different doppler shifts?

Oct 07, 2014
Time is QM emergent.
Interesting. Please expand on this. - DS


A universal wave function 'evolves'. ..before'(?) we discuss 'measurement', 'observation', 'decoherence' and 'collapse'.
QM provides a meaningful platform to discuss the latter four points of any model brought up so far on this thread.

How does the Zeno Quantum Effect dovetail into article and all of the commentary put forth by the astute, ardent and helpful commentary contributors here?

Oct 07, 2014
Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either.
How could it?
Why are you asking me this question?
Because you claimed, right there in black and white, that it doesn't... implying it should or could.

Decoherence is not an interpretation of QM, it's merely an observation; a brute fact, if you will. All interpretations solve the measurement problem, but they solve it different conceptual ways. There is, so far, no means of selecting among interpretations of QM (at least the valid ones). It may be a lemma of physics (like the wave/particle duality) that there can be no such means.
Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?
Where you claimed decoherence should solve the measurement problem. Only an interpretation of QM can do that.

Oct 07, 2014
I get that in QM it is all about the final measurements and not the unseen action. But supposing the possible paths were manipulated in different ways, would you get different doppler shifts?
No, different final phases; for example, if you open the second and third slits in the experiment above, you'll get an interference pattern with stripes where the phases from the three most probable paths (the slits, singly, by a direct path) sometimes constructively and sometimes destructively interfere with each other, whereas if only one slit is open you get no interference because all the other likely alternatives are suppressed by being closed and therefore all photons hitting the same spot (or very near it) have the same phase.

Oct 07, 2014
Time is QM emergent.
Interesting. Please expand on this. - DS


A universal wave function 'evolves'. ..before'(?) we discuss 'measurement', 'observation', 'decoherence' and 'collapse'.
QM provides a meaningful platform to discuss the latter four points of any model brought up so far on this thread.

How does the Zeno Quantum Effect dovetail into article and all of the commentary put forth by the astute, ardent and helpful commentary contributors here?
Even more interesting. Glad I asked!

Oct 07, 2014
Btw, decoherence DOES NOT resolve this measurement problem either. - Noumenon

How could it? - Da Schneib

Why are you asking me this question? - Noumenon

Because you claimed, right there in black and white, that it doesn't... implying it should or could. - Da Schneib


How can "does not" imply "should or could"? Is this a joke?

Why are you telling me this? Where did I say that decoherence was an interpretation of qm?

Where you claimed decoherence should solve the measurement problem.


I never claimed that " decoherence should solve the measurement problem",... in fact I claimed the EXACT OPPOSITE. What is wrong with you?

The reason for me stating the exact opposite of what you are claiming of me, is to counter claims made by others that decoherence could solve the measurement problem,... those for which you claimed had "well argued" posts.

I don't believe you even read the comment thread at all or understood it.

Oct 07, 2014
Forget it.

Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.

smd
Oct 08, 2014
Noumenon - have you read the paper I linked to?
http://www.scienc...9190194I

Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.


My very first post responded to that claim and the claim continued again and again. In particular see the last sentence which I quoted in my 1st post. I'm perplexed as to why you'e questioning me on this and not them. Though the word "decoherence" was not used, I don't think they are denying it.

Oct 08, 2014
Noumenon - have you read the paper I linked to?
http://www.scienc...9190194I


I responded to your post above as follows,...

"It is already implied that a wave-function is an interference of probability amplitudes, which is why some states get ruled out, in destructive interference. We're talking about the "collapse of the wave function" upon a measurement. This is not explained by the wave-function leaking into the environment or experimental equipment, as in Decoherence,.... as there is NO collapsing wave-function in decoherence,... there is no break from deterministic evolution of the state."

IOW interference of probability amplitudes does not imply what is known as decoherence,... if this answer is inadequate or I missed your point I will look again.


Oct 08, 2014
The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe essentially at the speed of light and combines with the other wavefunctions until every wavefunction "agrees" what actually happened. - Eikka


Yes correct, that is called decoherence. However the reason why it does not resolve the measurement problem and why a conscious observer is fundamentally different than just quantum systems interacting, is that a) the wave-function as a superposition of all possible states is not itself observable, b) decoherence implies Loss of quantum behaviour , evolving to the appearance of classical intuitive behaviour even though we know everything is quantum. - Noumenon


@Da Schnieb,
I repost the above exchange. The context is the difference between "conscious observer" and "interaction" in an experiment. Does it appear that Eikka is refering to decoherence here to you,.... or did I misread it entirely? He did not correct me if so.

Oct 08, 2014
(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe well as entanglement death - smd


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. - Noumenon


@Da Schnieb
I reposted the above exchange.

Does this sound like it was implied that decoherence causes wavefunction collapse to you? (3) could not have referred to probability amplitude interference. Did I misread this also?

Oct 08, 2014
Let's try this: quote the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem.


My very first post responded to that claim and the claim continued again and again.
So there isn't one.

Thought so.

Oct 08, 2014
Decoherence is merely the idea that contact (direct or indirect, such as by forces due to charges of subatomic particles) causes coherent particles (i.e. particles that are in a superposition, whether they are entangled or not) to de-cohere, that is, their wavefunction takes on a real value as opposed to the superposition of values it had before. This contact can be environmental, or purposeful in the case of a measurement, or incidental in the case of interference. This is not "decoherence solving the measurement problem;" in fact, decoherence is *causing* the measurement problem.

Solutions to the measurement problem are equal to interpretations of QM. Decoherence is merely a physical effect, and an obvious one at that, not an interpretation of QM. Each interpretation (or class of them) has its own way of solving the measurement problem. There is no way to distinguish among interpretations that we have found so far.

Oct 08, 2014
Rating them 1s when you don't have a response because you lied is...

Typical. Thanks for confirming I'm right.

Oct 08, 2014
Oh, and BTW decoherence is interpretation-independent; it is compatible with most if not all interpretations, including Cramer's TI, classical Copenhagen, Everett's MW, Bohm, my favorite which is Consistent Histories, and even the odd ones like Many Minds and Quantum Logic.

Decoherence is not an interpretation and does not suggest a solution to the measurement problem. Only an interpretation of QM can do that.

Oct 08, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me, claimed that I "lied" and attributed statements to me that I never stated; in fact the polar opposite, interjectd debates that never existed, and have been ridiculously dishonest, ... have not read the posts in context. Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?

Oct 08, 2014
You *did* lie; you said someone claimed that decoherence solves the measurement problem, and when challenged to provide evidence you tried to change the subject.

And I got 1s from you because you're chickensxxt.

Period.

Now knock it off.

Oct 08, 2014
And BTW, telling you you're wrong and downrating your posts because of it is not "trolling."

On Earth.

Get over yourself.

NOM
Oct 08, 2014
That's not likely. Noumenon's hobby is uprating himself after someone else gives him a 1.

smd
Oct 08, 2014
Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?

No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that "interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death." (You remember - it was the third point in a list I posted where you - as I pointed out at the time - erroneously imputed sequential dependence.)

In that same post you wrote "interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse." Oops: interference can cause decoherence - but interference is NOT decoherence.

Moreover, I twice posted a link to a paper confirming that statement. Its abstract concludes:
"This novel behavior illustrates the interference of probability amplitudes and the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics."

Therefore, there are three alternatives: you didn't read the paper; read it but didn't understand it; or understood it but didn't comment because it proved you incorrect. None are respectable choices.

Oct 09, 2014
Gee, *somebody* didn't read the thread, but it sure looks like *I* did.

Say "d'oh," Noumenon.

And *now* who lied?

Oct 09, 2014
So I have to ask about the non-classical paths. Are these the limiting factor on modeling QM and/or is their contribution significant to the noise? Can non-classical paths merely converge to the finite but in reality represent some lower level illusuary slit? Is this more or less absurd than the many worlds and/or many minds interpretation? The preservation of unitarity both concerns but interests me. Is unitarity only meaningful with the context of a locality which can be specified specific enough?

Could it be a false dicotomy to assume QM has a function where as in truth it is at its basis a spectrum of variable distributions of an innumerable combination of signal and noise without an actual determinate ratio.

We can continually play up the continous aspect of this down selection of the infinite, but surely even if this is the case why cannot math grant us the mathematical structure. Some claim hidden variables, but maybe it's just epiphenomenal when handling the infinite.

Oct 09, 2014
Did not smd not imply wavefunction collapse due to decoherence?


No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that "interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death."


No? It sure sounds like it to me,....

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe ..... - smd


I already pointed out the distinction of interference of probability amplitudes and decoherence several times above. Interference of probability amplitudes does not "collapse the wave-function" either,.... as I said, based on border conditions, it quantifies the possible (finite) observable states of the system. I did not read your link, but think you are reading to far into the particular quote. ....

Oct 09, 2014
That's not likely. Noumenon's hobby is uprating himself after someone else gives him a 1.


I indeed countered your ratings, and will continue to do so, because you have proven yourself to be a corrupt troll rater. There are others, like Uncle_Ira. You follow me around and rate everyone of my posts a 1, irrespective of content or you own capacity to understand them. I have never made a "2" quality post? I get suspicious when trolls rate every post a 1, so they get it back.

Unfortunately when dealing with dishonest and immature posters, more interested in a Jerry-Springer pissing contests, you get clowns deliberately talking past each other, calling another a lier, attributing statements that were never made, and deliberately skipping over others posts, not answering question, etc. These threads degenerate quickly.

Oct 09, 2014
The point of me entering this thread was, as is clear from my exchange with Eikka and others, was to point out that an Observer does not have a quantum description of himself, the environment, and his equipment in actually conducting an experiment,... there is this distinction between a conscious observer and simply a quantum interaction in measurement. IOW saying that the conscious observer is just another complicated quantum system himself, provides only a heuristic explanation.

Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem. It is shown here however that in the cases in which a sentient being is explicitly assumed to take cognizance of the outcome the reasons we have for judging this way are not totally consistent, so that the question has to be considered anew......" - Bernard d'Espagnat.

Oct 09, 2014

"It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem....... [this point is in disagreement with claims made by DaSchnieb above that my claim to the contrary was not warranted above or even in principal]..... This assertion however is far from being endorsed by all physicists, and the reason is that recognition of the universality of the said interaction is only one of the ingredients in the solution.........." - B. d'Espagnat from above links.


smd
Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. Moreover, the quote continues that "It is pointed out that the way the Broglie-Bohm model solves the riddle suggests a possible clue, consisting in assuming that even very simple systems may have some sort of a protoconsciousness, but that their 'internal states of consciousness' are not predictive. It is, next, easily shown that if we imagine the systems get larger, in virtue of decoherence their internal states of consciousness progressively gain in predictive value...." This suggests that he is a biocentrist - a scientist who holds that quantum theory proves consciousness transcends death. In other words, a secular religion, as indicated by his 'hypercosmic God' concept.

So, Noumenon - are you primarily a quantum physicist or philosopher? Just curious.

Oct 09, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la... a one-star vote means that he doesn't agree with what you said, or that he thinks you are wrong
that is it

if you did not lie, you should have proved it with links/posts/quotes/etc
there are no governing rules about how to rate (much to the chagrin of rc) so voting is all a matter of personal preference

But to admit that you voted not on content but because you are pissy about him being in disagreement really can be considered trolling (trolling- trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. urbandictionary.com)

So what about the people who come after the argument, read and agree with DaSchneib and not you? are they trolling too, in your opinion? or just hangers on?

Oct 09, 2014
I indeed countered your ratings, and will continue to do so, because you have proven yourself to be a corrupt troll rater
@Nou
Wait a minute... your argument to someone you are claiming to be a troll is to admit to having a bunch of sock puppets that skew the ratings in your favor? (Which is considered trolling and very wrong almost everywhere including crackpot sites... even zephirs site doesn't like sock-puppets!)
like Uncle_Ira
Uncle Ira doesn't follow you around so much as likes a lot of the same type articles (unless you have a serious quote of him stating he follows you around to troll you)
He just doesn't like you and thinks you push nonsense (like philosophy over science)... and then rates accordingly
HOW is that WRONG?
isn't that pretty much what YOU do?
that is what you admit to doing above!
and you let your anger overwhelm you to ignore content because someone called you a liar and you DID NOT prove it wrong!

Pot/Kettle here, Nou


Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. [......]...


Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent. All that effort could have been invested instead in understanding him, several orders of magnitude more interesting.

It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics. It mentions consciousness for the same reason that I mentioned epistemology, for the same reason I drew a distinction between a conscious observer and his quantum description, and Positivism as opposed to Realism in QM.

d'Espagnat is a well known physicist and has written extensively on the conceptual foundations of qm. I believe I provided a few links to one of his books,.... in none of these was there mention of religion. The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied.

Oct 09, 2014
It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is -Bernard d'Espagnat.
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem -B. d'Espagnat
@Nou
another point I would like to make about your rant
you quote ONE person twice and think that this actually is evidence that something is generally agreed upon or claimed?
That is like saying that Al Gore speaks for the AGW scientists
It is patently false and considered a really bad judgement call unless you have a means of proving the veracity of the claims. for instance: when scientists say "97% of scientists agree on AGW" they also provided a link like this: http://iopscience.../article
or even this one:
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

then they can say that there is clear evidence or reason for the claim

Oct 09, 2014
,... the point of quoting that particular paper is contained in the first sentence, smd.

@Stumpy, I've been a poster at Phys.Org for 7 years. NOM is a corrupt rating troll out of many that I have dealt with in like fashion. His ratings of me are entirely invalid. If I had my way, the comment ratings would be disabled, and posters would be forced to make counter arguments instead.

It is patently false and considered a really bad judgement call unless you have a means of proving the veracity of the claims. for instance: when scientists say "97% of scientists agree


Science does not work by democracy vote nor gang warfare. His claim is correct. It is now your job to refute that statement.

Oct 09, 2014
It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is -Bernard d'Espagnat.
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem -B. d'Espagnat

@Nou
another point I would like to make about your rant
you quote ONE person twice and think that this actually is evidence that something is generally agreed upon or claimed?


According to Bernard d'Espagnat it is true. This is a man well respected who has been deeply involved in qm since he was a student of DeBroglie.

That is all I need, to reject the notion that it is superfluous or logically unnecessary to say "decoherence does not solve the measurement problem", as claimed by DaSchnieb.

Now if you think it is reasonable and rational to suppose that d'Espagnat could possibly be mistaken on this or is lying, then it is up to YOU to "prove" it, as it is YOUR counter claim.

Oct 09, 2014
Science does not work by democracy vote nor gang warfare
@Noum
never said it did
but that quote only showed where the investigation of the evidence proved that 97% of the scientists working on the problem all agreed that it was a problem and that man had affected the situation.
That is the science. not the quote. nor the viewpoint that most denier's tend to take (about science not working on democracy)
If I had my way, the comment ratings would be disabled, and posters would be forced to make counter arguments instead
wasn't that what DaSchneib was doing?
wouldn't that mean that your argument is just hypocrisy?
because that is what it appears, given that you simply did the same thing that you are condemning... after all, you also admitted down-voting for being angry, didn't you?

lead by example

smd
Oct 09, 2014
Your partial d'Espagnat quote is interesting but speculative and therefore tangential in that it is taken from the abstract in one of his philosophical papers on consciousness. [......]...Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent. All that effort could have been invested instead in understanding him, several orders of magnitude more interesting.


You really are quite paranoid. I simply assumed that most readers of this thread know that he is a renowned QM physicist who focused largely on experimental tests of Bell's theorem.

It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.

The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied


Probably? So you don't know. FYI, he received the 2009 Templeton prize (dedicated to reconciling science and religion) for this.

Oct 09, 2014
that quote only showed where the investigation of the evidence proved that 97% of the scientists working on the problem all agreed that it was a problem and that man had affected the situation.


The point is not how many think 'decoherence could solve the measurement problem', but rather, that enough do according to a well respected physicist, ...... that the counter argument is not redundant nor logically superfluous.

d'Espagnat even says it is far from being believed by all.....


"It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem....... [this point is in disagreement with claims made by DaSchnieb above that my claim to the contrary was not warranted above or even in principal]..... This assertion however is FAR FROM BEING ENDORSED BY ALL PHYSICISTS, and the reason is that recognition of the universality of the said interaction is only one of the ingredients in the solution......" - B. d'Espagnat from above links.

Oct 09, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.

Yes of course.

The "hypercosmic God" notion is probably similar to "Noumenon" of Immanuel Kant. NO religious connotations implied


Probably? So you don't know.


Yes that is correct, I don't know. I have never heard that phrase until you posted it, despite having read some of his books on qm. Being a positivist, as opposed to a realist, it is logically necessary to find justification for objective reality. Kant did this with Noumenon,... perhaps d'Espagnat is doing like wise with "hypercosmic god" notion and you are conflating this with religion. Honestly I don't know at this moment. How is it relevant here? Did he mention this in the paper I linked? The paper at arXive summarizes it's objective which is of qm.

Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem."
"Generally agreed" by whom? Let's see who "generally agrees." Got anyone else?

On edit: Apparently a small group of physicists led by Heinz-Deter Zeh thinks decoherence solves the measurement problem, but even some of them, for example Maximilian Schlosshauer, are thinking now that it doesn't. So it's definitely not "generally agreed" at all.

Oct 09, 2014
You should have read the Wikipedia article on the measurement problem, Noum. It's very well-sourced.

Oct 09, 2014
BTW I don't downrate to 1 just because I disagree; if the argument is well-presented, I give at least a 3. But if I see someone saying things that just aren't true, like claiming someone said something but not being able to quote it, or using the old "science is not a democracy" argument that all the deniers use, then I start giving ones out. It's dishonest.

Oct 09, 2014
"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem."
"Generally agreed" by whom? Let's see who "generally agrees." Got anyone else?

On edit: Apparently a small group of physicists led by Heinz-Deter Zeh thinks decoherence solves the measurement problem, but even some of them, for example Maximilian Schlosshauer, are thinking now that it doesn't. So it's definitely not "generally agreed" at all.


It is quit ubiquitous in fact among even professional physicist, and so likely even more so among amateurs, and further it is VERY unreasonable to suppose that d'Espagnat is lying or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment.

Roland Omnes is another very well known physicist,... not that I feel at all the burden of proof here.

Oct 09, 2014
Sorry, I don't believe "ubiquitous" and you haven't shown it so far.

If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Don't try to put it off on d'Espagnat, either, he's part of the evidence you presented (which is insufficient).

Oct 09, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics.


Hmm...the title is "Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem" and discusses quantum consciousness.


I do not see any mention of "quantum consciousness" in that paper. Please provide a direct quote.

You really are quite paranoid. I simply assumed that most readers of this thread know that he is a renowned QM physicist who focused largely on experimental tests of Bell's theorem.


Thank you for mentioning that fact. It 1) makes it even more reasonable to be suspicious as to why one would mention religion and "hypercosmic god" in this thread, still left unanswered, and 2) makes it even less rational to suppose that d'Espagnat is lying or is wrong wrt his quoted assessment of his colleagues.

Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked,

"There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.

Oct 09, 2014
Sorry, I don't believe "ubiquitous" and you haven't shown it so far.

If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Don't try to put it off on d'Espagnat, either, he's part of the evidence you presented (which is insufficient).


The thread has been long and you have been busy with insults, so I forgive you for forgetting,... but it was YOU who questioned me on the matter. I have provided two very well known professional physicists, and you yourself have discovered yet another. This is all I need (not that I could not find more), to justify the appropriateness of my original remark to non-professionals. Not that I suppose for one moment that had I provided a hundred more examples, that you could muster enough integrity to admit that you are wrong.

Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked,

"There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.


Did you read the abstract. The point which refutes you is that he regards the question as valid. In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.

You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong? I would believe him, as well as my own assessment, over an internet insulter and troll rater.

I am unable to continue this thread further as it is pointless.

Oct 09, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again.

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem; mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem, and furthermore that it's not theoretical but an experimentally proven fact, which Omnes also says in that same paper (and even right after the quote I excerpted above, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find).

So now you're trying to change your claim without admitting it. This logical fallacy is called "moving the goalposts," and is detailed here: https://yourlogic...pleading

Using logically fallacious arguments is trolling.

smd
Oct 09, 2014
On d'Espagnat's hypercosmic God (a hidden yet ultimate reality beyond time, space, matter, and energy which he sometimes calls a Being or Independent Reality): "There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments....Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God...."

As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.

Belief is not knowledge, even though they can viscerally feel the same.

Oct 09, 2014
Omnes says, in the paper you linked, "There were nevertheless several such advances, although they shed no light on collapse. One may mention for instance decoherence..."

So actually he doesn't believe it's an interpretation of QM or solves the measurement problem either.

Sorry, no, this is not evidence that supports your claim.
Did you read the abstract.
Necessarily since I found the above quote which is after the abstract, duh.

The point which refutes you is that he regards the question as valid.
What question? The one you're trying to move the goalposts to?

The original question is whether the physics community at large believes decoherence is either a) a theory or a brute fact, b) whether it is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem, and c) whether anyone here claimed it is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem. Whether Omnes is ingenious enough to attempt to do so is immaterial to these questions.

Oct 09, 2014
In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.
Actually it matters very much. Here you are making another claim, and failing to provide evidence to support it. Lying again. That's three times in a row, Noum.

You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong?
I think he's exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so. Just like you did when you claimed someone said decoherence is an attempt to explain or solve the measurement problem, and just like you did with Omnes, and just like you did when you claimed Omnes showed that it is such an attempt, when in fact he himself is doing so in a speculative theoretical paper. And just like when you implied decoherence is "just a theory."

Oct 09, 2014
Decoherence is a brute fact, supported by experimental results, not a theory, and not an attempt to explain the measurement problem. It was predicted based upon the MW/Everett interpretation, but turns out to work with most if not all interpretations; also, because it's a fact, showing that an interpretation doesn't accommodate it is showing that interpretation denies facts, and is therefore eliminated as a viable interpretation of QM.

Oct 09, 2014
As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.
Indeed. It's also a pair of logical fallacies, specifically the Appeal to Tradition http://www.nizkor...ion.html by claiming that information beyond our current abilities to obtain it will always remain so, and the Appeal to Ignorance (a form of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof away from the claimant: http://www.nizkor...of.html) by that same argument, and furthermore the Appeal to Authority inherent in inventing a super magic sky daddy to explain what we don't know.

smd
Oct 09, 2014
As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system: To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.
Indeed. It's also a pair of logical fallacies, specifically the Appeal to Tradition http://www.nizkor...ion.html by that same argument, and furthermore the Appeal to Authority inherent in inventing a super magic sky daddy to explain what we don't know.


Exactly. Thank you for adding these points.

I'll add one more: religiosity is by no means limited to religion: it applies to any cognitive state in which inflexible adherence to and defense of axiomatic beliefs take precedence over knowledge, reasoning and imagination.

Oct 09, 2014
In other words, when beliefs deny reality. Yes, we agree on this, smd. This is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy: what you and I sense is real and is indicative of real events in the real world happening to us, and what we deduce from what we sense is as well.

The others are, you and I are real and our interactions are equally real, what you and I remember in the past are real events that really happened to us, and you are as real as I am. These are axiomatic. I defend them rigorously, but not viciously; if someone can demonstrate that they are incorrect, then I am open to their evidence, but skeptical of it.

And your definition of religiosity also applies to conspiracy theories. ;)

Oct 09, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la...

CapS, can't you stop your bait/troll allusions to/about me for even one day? Shut yer trap, idiot hypocrite.

In any case, your encouragement, approval of Uncle Ira's and others of your 'daisy-chain-gang-of-hypocritical stupids' BOT-BLOCK-downvoting from a 'list' irrespective of posted content, is NOT ACCEPTABLE ANYWHERE where scientific method rules of proper science discourse apply. So how can you stand there and castigate others for eventually adopting the SAME strategy to counter your own hypocritical sock-bot-troll gang tactics which skew the ratings pages?

You utter idiot, hypocrite. Can't you see you/your gang are the ones who BROUGHT that downvoting-sock practice to the science sites! But now you whinge, rail and report' Noum for adopting YOUR tactics in self defense? Unbelievable! Shame on you, your wilful insensibility and hypocrisy. Quit it.

Oct 09, 2014
Superposition? Double-slit experiment? Paradox? Feynman path integral approach?

smd
Oct 09, 2014
In other words, when beliefs deny reality. Yes, we agree on this, smd. This is one of the foundations of my personal philosophy: what you and I sense is real and is indicative of real events in the real world happening to us, and what we deduce from what we sense is as well.

The others are, you and I are real and our interactions are equally real, what you and I remember in the past are real events that really happened to us, and you are as real as I am. These are axiomatic. I defend them rigorously, but not viciously; if someone can demonstrate that they are incorrect, then I am open to their evidence, but skeptical of it.

And your definition of religiosity also applies to conspiracy theories. ;)


Completely agreed, Da Schneib

Oct 10, 2014
CapS, can't you stop your
TL:DR
BAIT/TROLL post
I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT

Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS.
TL:DR
BAIT/TROLL post
I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT
Have you no sense enough when to keep your mouth shut and leave well alone and stop digging, CapS? You said to Noumenon....
@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck and his paradoid conspiracy crap-o-la...
...which was obvious and intentionally disparaging me while being the hypocrite to Noumenon, accusing him of using the SAME tactics (in his own defense) which you and your gang have brought into the forum and made an 'art form of insensibilty' of!

So it's a bit rich for you to claim that it wasn't YOU that GRATUITOUSLY invoked me disparagingly while being your usual hypocritical TROLL to others as well!

What do you take the wider readership here as, CapS? They are NOT fools like you and your gang, you know. They can spot and smell your hypocrisy and trolling nitwittery a mile off by now.

Just stop digging, bigmouth hypocritical nitwit, then all will be ok

Oct 10, 2014
You said to Noumenon....
@rc
yep
To NOU... not you. and that is perfectly legitimate comment given that there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting the conclusions posted in various threads all over PO
in fact, even here with this little comment
like you and your gang
That infers that I am part of a conspiracy against you, when there is empirical evidence that i am member of any gang
the only evidence you might come up with is that i am friends with a few people and none of us like you because you lie, bait and troll the threads
Therefore, whenever i see your posts and there is no science
i will downvote and report the post
this one i am reporting because you were not part of the convo- you are attempting to force others (me) into an opinion that they have not chosen for themselves

I will say whatever I wish against you as I can provide your own posts for proof
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

good night, TROLL

Oct 10, 2014
CapS, really, you must stop engaging in your double-speak rationalizations for denying your own faults in this matter. It is plain to see that your allusions and disparagements were directed at me via your 'conversation with your fellow mindless trolls. That 'device' does not in any way 'hide' your troll and bait to/about me. So please stop trying your juvenile level 'i'm innocent troll' schtick and give your insensible blabbermouth a rest. It's becoming too creepy stupid for words or excuses, mate. Really. And I have lately and often provided your OWN posts as proof that you are a hypocritical troll of no value to science or humanity discourse. But you keep insensibly digging yourself deeper! Stop digging yourself ever deeper, CapS.

Oct 11, 2014
You received ones, because you troll rated me - Noumenon responding to the NOM troll


@noumenon
hold on here... you are starting to sound just like realitycheck... - Stumpy


so, likewise,.....

I never addressed or posted to you
BUTT OUT


Oct 11, 2014
It is not a paper on consciousness, it is one on quantum mechanics. - Noumenon


Hmm...the title is Consciousness and the Wigner's Friend Problem and discusses quantum consciousness. -SMD


I do not see any mention of "quantum consciousness" in that paper. Please provide a direct quote. - Noumenon


@SMD, I'm still waiting for you to provide a direct quote from that paper showing that it is one on "quantum consciousness".

So, by your own insulting logic,....

"there are three alternatives: you didn't read the paper; read it but didn't understand it; or understood it but didn't comment because it proved you incorrect. None are respectable choices. - smd"

I don't know that d'Espagnat every developed such an idea, ...ala Penrose. Of course the mention of consciousness,...a conscious observer, is entirely appropriate given the context.

Oct 11, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again. - DaSchnieb


Yet you just did again, saying that I am "lying" repeatedly,... deliberately ignoring all the other possibilities wrt me, and including your own possible faulty reasoning or misapprehension,... "duh".

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem;


Actually not. The initial statement of mine that YOU took exception to was "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either." The phrase "By The Way (btw) clearly indicates it was an aside, a remark not intended as one directly related to the main post which was responded to by me.

However, subsequently I did indeed claim that, and provided one of the quotes in question, which lead me to think that. I will repost it yet again having not received an answer. Perhaps, you, DeSchnieb can explain why I misread it as such, and whether it was unreasonable to have do so (?)

Oct 11, 2014
Did not smd not IMPLY wavefunction collapse due to decoherence? - Noumeon


No, Noumenon, I did not. I wrote that interference results in superposition collapse - smd[...]


No? It sure sounds like it to me, (- Noumenon)...

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE .... - smd


I already pointed out the distinction of interference of probability amplitudes and [environmental] decoherence several times above. Interference of probability amplitudes does not "collapse the wave-function" either.... - Noumenon


I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.

smd
Oct 11, 2014
I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.

I did nothing of the sort (and you meant "quite," not "quit").

If you actually experience disagreement as an attack, then - as I mentioned earlier - your appear paranoid, making reasonable conversation with you impossible.

You also have demonstrated to all on this thread (as has been pointed out) that your accuse others of during what you yourself are actually doing. This is either intentional and therefore cynical, or you are completely unaware of your own thinking process. Either way, and once again, such behavior makes reasonable conversation impossible.

Respond as you will. I've learned the unfortunate lesson in this thread that there are participants, including yourself, who are here for reasons other than having a substantive discussion of the article.

Enough.

Oct 11, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem - DaSchnieb


Yes, we agree on this. There was zero disagreement on this point. YOU objected to ME stating THAT very point to others, ....apparently on the grounds that it would be superfluous or logically unnecessary to do so. THIS is where we disagree and where the evidence proves you wrong,...

The point wrt Omnes or anyone else for that matter, was not what they concluded, but that they regarded the question one sufficiently important to refute,.... as I Noumenon also felt justified in mentioning it as well.

"It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem" - d'Espagnat

It is not reasonable and in fact desperate, to suppose that d'Espagnat is exaggerating or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment.

.....

Oct 11, 2014
"Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy." - Maximilian Schlosshauer

"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler

and yet another,... Art Hobson

,... and in fact anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question,.... and in books and other references where Decoherence is described it is invariably stated as well,... so it was not unreasonable for me to do so here.

Oct 11, 2014
I am quit suspicious that you attacked me in this thread, despite our agreeing on my factual "btw" statement, while also ignoring blatantly questionable statements made by others.


I did nothing of the sort (and you meant "quite," not "quit").


I was still responding to DaSchnieb, I just used your quote. I didn't make this clear.

You also have demonstrated to all on this thread (as has been pointed out) that your accuse others of during what you yourself are actually doing.


It is fascinating that you don't see DaSchnieb as doing so. Perhaps we are both talking past each other.

Oct 11, 2014
On d'Espagnat's hypercosmic God (a hidden yet ultimate reality beyond time, space, matter, and energy which he sometimes calls a Being or Independent Reality): "There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly.


Just as I suspected, it is similar to Kant's 'Noumenon' concept. Again the above referenced book is not ABOUT the metaphysical realm,... but instead is about the limits of valid scientific enquiry. It is a Positivists justification of an Objective world, and an argument against a Realist interpretation of QM (who propose such things a many worlds, etc).

Kant himself had already resoundingly made this point in 'A Critique of Pure Reason' wrt Noumenon, saying "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge". It was a epistemological statement, one about the validity of knowledge,... statements that even an atheist (like me) could make following the same reasoning.....

Oct 11, 2014
....

Abraham Pais, Nuclear Physicist, and well known biographer, stated that Niels Bohr was the natural successor to Immanuel Kant,... on account of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. This was again not a religious or belief system statement, but one based in QM interpretations with consideration of epistemology.

Oct 11, 2014
"In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments....Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God...."

As I said, a secular - or rather secularized - religion-like belief system:


Any further speculations by d'Espagnat than that described in my previous post, and the book and paper I linked to, can have relevance to this thread only to one who has completely misapprehended the context, or has instead sought to discredit a legitimate source and renowned physicist.

Oct 11, 2014
To assert that something beyond our ken at the present time will always remain so, and to then invoke an unknowable a transcendental being or reality to account for that unknowable realm is, like it or not, the cognitive foundation of spiritual belief and religious faith.


False. The exact opposite.

It is merely to ascertain an understanding of the limits and validity of scientific knowledge.

That an objective world exist is one based on experience. That scientific enquiry can obtain knowledge of Reality that is independent of mind, is scientifically and logically unfounded (d'Espagnat's book linked to above, which is about qm, explains why). The realm of scientific enquiry is "phenomenal reality" which necessarily contains a component that is mind dependent.

In fact, Scientific Positivism rejects the "spiritual belief" implied by the Realist interpretation.

Oct 11, 2014
There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly.


d'Espagnat's book linked to above justifies this statement on scientific interpretational grounds,,,, not on any secular religious grounds,... in fact it contains an argument against a scientifically unfounded belief system implicit in the Realist position.

Again why bother to mention "hypercosmic god" here, and worse why misrepresent it's relevancy to science?

Oct 11, 2014
In any case I may have provided the wrong link. It was mentioned at physicsforums that his text makes the claim and provides page numbers. I can't recheck it now. But it does not matter.

Actually it matters very much. Here you are making another claim, and failing to provide evidence to support it. Lying again.


No, you insulting twit,.. it just means that it does not matter wrt the "btw" statement being appropriate to make here.

I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book with myself having read and verified it in the book (which may still be correct).

However this does not mean that I was lying. Here is the comment, 2nd from top.

Why do I feel like I must get my lawyer involved when talking to you? My libertarian or anti-liberal posts in other threads should have no bearing in this one.

Oct 11, 2014
I think [d'Espagnat is] exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so. [...] just like when you implied decoherence is "just a theory."


I have never implied that decoherence is "just a theory". Did you just invent that lie on the spot?

[EDIT ABOVE] "I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book [without] myself having read and verified it in the book"

Oct 11, 2014
I think [d'Espagnat is] exaggerating and you're pretending his off-hand statement is a fact without providing any evidence and desperately trying to justify not doing so....


I have now provided more statements equivalent to his by well known physicists. You have made it ambiguous as to when they become sufficient to refute you,.... even though logically, even ONE such assessment of the question is sufficient to have done so.

Had I provided 1,000 more like sources, you would still lack the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit to being factually wrong,... wrt the supposed superfluousness or logically non-necessity of making that factual statement in a science news site.

QED

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]

Oct 11, 2014
Actually I haven't used any insults at all. You lied again.
Yet you just did again, saying that I am "lying" repeatedly,... deliberately ignoring all the other possibilities wrt me, and including your own possible faulty reasoning or misapprehension,... "duh".
Unfortunately it's obviously a lie. When someone says something that's not true, and then resorts to dishonesty when challenged, we call that "lying." It's not an insult; it's a statement of fact.

Not only that but your claim was that someone claimed decoherence solves the measurement problem;
Actually not. The initial statement of mine that YOU took exception to was "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem either." The phrase "By The Way (btw) clearly indicates it was an aside, a remark not intended as one directly related to the main post which was responded to by me.
So? It's still a lie. Decoherence was never intended to resolve the measurement problem. It's a brute physical fact.

Oct 11, 2014
However, subsequently I did indeed claim that, and provided one of the quotes in question,
Unfortunately your quote only proved that one physicist had attempted to use decoherence to do it, and that that physicist exaggerated in his paper's abstract (or introduction; I'm too lazy to go look which) about it being some sort of consensus among more than a few like-minded physicists. The evidence you provided didn't prove what you claimed it did, and I took it apart piece by piece and showed that.

which lead me to think that. I will repost it yet again having not received an answer.
You received an answer; you just didn't like it.

Perhaps, you, DeSchnieb can explain why I misread it as such, and whether it was unreasonable to have do so (?)
I already have shown it was unreasonable; as for why you misread things that way, I have no idea because I am not a psychologist.

Oct 11, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem
Yes, we agree on this.
No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way. It's not, and they didn't.

The point wrt Omnes or anyone else for that matter, was not what they concluded, but that they regarded the question one sufficiently important to refute,.... as I Noumenon also felt justified in mentioning it as well.
But that's not what Omnes did. You're lying again.

"It is generally agreed"
By whom?

"that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem" - d'Espagnat
No, it's not. Decoherence is the observation of experiment. It's a brute physical fact, not a solution to the measurement problem.

Oct 11, 2014
It is not reasonable and in fact desperate, to suppose that d'Espagnat is exaggerating or has not conversed with enough colleagues on the subject to justify his assessment
LOL

He made one little exaggeration and you're trying to blow that up into some sort of rigorous statement of fact. It's not and never was. You're lying again, Noum.

And the desperate one is you, trying to inflate this claim.

anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question,
Neither is a journal of record.

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
LOL

You ARE paranoid.

I'm not NOM.

Oct 11, 2014
"Environment-induced decoherence and superselection have been a subject of intensive research over the past two decades, yet their implications for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics, most notably the quantum measurement problem, have remained a matter of great controversy." - http://arxiv.org/.../0312059
That isn't a statement that decoherence is or ever was an attempt to solve the measurement problem, nor even a statement that it can do so, nor is it a statement that anyone here ever attempted to use it so. You're still lying, Noum.

and in books and other references where Decoherence is described it is invariably stated as well,
I've read a lot of physics books and papers and never seen anyone claim decoherence can, could, or was ever intended to solve the measurement problem. How about you name some of these mysterious books? Just for grins.

Oct 11, 2014
"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler
The wavefunction collapse is a feature of one specific interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation. Not only that but there are other modified versions of that interpretation that do not have wavefunction collapse. Furthermore, wavefunction collapse is not the measurement problem. Finally, when I see things like "fashionable" I know that I am reading an offhand comment, not a rigorous statement of fact. Here you are desperately trying to inflate another offhand comment into some sort of rigorous statement of fact. You're lying again, Noum.

and yet another,... Art Hobson
Quote or it never happened. I'm not going to search some paper trying to figure out what you're talking about. Particularly not when the rest of your "evidence" consists of offhand comments that lack rigor.

Oct 11, 2014
Oh, and I suggest you search on the term "liar." You will find I never used it; that would be an insult. I only said, "this is a lie." I occasionally use insults, but only on people who are obviously trolling for a negative response. You, it appears to me, are merely mistaken. You appear to be repeating lies others have told you, and rationalizations of those lies you have made up yourself. You are guilty of nothing more than repeating them, and rationalizing unreasonable statements, and misunderstanding the difference between the formal and the colloquial. Since I am regularly guilty of presenting the formal and the colloquial alongside each other, I guess I can't do any more than point it out; personal criticism is for others to mete out (or not, as they choose). However, I can and do criticize such statements, often by giving them 1 star.

Do you always take things so personally?

Oct 11, 2014
Well then perhaps the universe is only 6,000 years old in the sense that "someone" opened "the box" about that time and all the waveforms from the last 15 billion years suddenly collapsed into the reality we see. And no, I'm an agnostic with a sense of humor, not a creationist.

Oct 12, 2014
wavefunction collapse is not the measurement problem.


It is the only valid interpretation from an operational point of view (in repeated measurements resulting in same results), so wavefunction collapse is invariably associated with the measurement problem, where ever one cares to look.

Oct 12, 2014
"It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem by eliminating the necessity for Von Neumann's wave function collapse postulate." - Stephen Adler

..... when I see things like "fashionable" I know that I am reading an offhand comment, not a rigorous statement of fact.


You are now inventing standards which you require Stephen Adler to submit to? It is an assessment apparently Adler felt justified in making of the physics community. That is the only reason for me posting it.

The fact IS that Stephen Adler says so, Bernard d'espagnat says so, Maximilian Schlosshauer says so, and Art Hobson thinks or thought so (you did not acknowledge clicking on his paper because the title was " Why decoherence solves the measurement problem", more dishonest corruption from you).

....

Oct 12, 2014
....

The point of contention by you was that my factual statement was superfluous or logically unnecessary to make at this non-rigorous science news site. You have been proven wrong beyond all doubt, 1) I have provided several well known physicists who state unambiguously as their own assessment that at least some claim decoherence can or may lead to a solution of the measurement problem, and then to state otherwise also, .....2) I have provided a link to one who even thinks it does do so..... 3) I have provided a link to the sister web site of this very non-rigorous web site in which I had made the statement you object to, showing that it is indeed entirely appropriate and not logically unnecessary to have done.

[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]

LOL

You ARE paranoid.

I'm not NOM.


I never said you are, ....why are you so paranoid?

Oct 12, 2014
mine is that in fact, decoherence isn't an attempt to solve the measurement problem

Yes, we agree on this.

No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way.


Only via your corrupt, deliberately obfuscating, a.d.d. logic would "does not" equate to "supposed to, or could". And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

"interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE - smd"

Oct 12, 2014
anyone can easily search physicsforums or arxiv.org for "decoherence measurement problem" and find the ubiquitousness of the question

Neither is a journal of record.


Neither is Phys.org a journal of record, and THIS is where I made the statement you absurdly object to.

I have never said that decoherence was originally put forward as a solution to the measurement problem. That is your colossal lie and obfuscation in this thread. I only implied that some claim that it may lead to or has provided a solution and that saying that "it does not" is sufficiently justified on those grounds,..... I have back this claim up by providing sufficient sources of well known physicist.

You are throwing none sense against the wall to see if it sticks. It is almost as if you are trying to convince those unable to follow the thread but yet still reading it, that you are Right. This would only make you the tallest midget in the room. I let you have that...

Oct 12, 2014
I have had less frustrating experiences in discussions with the crank johanfprins, ......they were at least about something.

smd
Oct 12, 2014
And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

"interference results in superposition COLLAPSE as The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE - smd"

While I've yet to accuse you of lying, Noumenon, I do so now: I didn't write this - Eikka did.

You've taken something I did write ("interference results in superposition collapse"), add the word "as" and attach what Eikka wrote ("The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe"), hoping that nobody would notice or bother to refute. Moreover, this is the third time you've posted this intentionally deceptive false construction (intentional because you knowingly replied to Eikka's quote separately).

You are a disgrace. Individuals like you abuse the privilege of engaging in an open science forum and should be banned.

Oct 12, 2014
Please accept my apology. It was actually NOT intentional. I am not dishonest like that, though it may be in your best interest to claim that.

The first two times I quoted you were accurate, but somehow it got garbled on Oct 8th, and then I copied my own error again.

On Oct 8th, I reposted my response to Eikka in the previous post, containing "The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE",... then in the very next post reposted my response to you, that erroneously contained the SAME sentence, "The causal effects of the interaction SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE". As you can see the "The" is capitalized and the entire sentence does not even make grammatical sense. It is garbled.

All I can do is apologize and ask that you accept that it could have been a garbled copy/paste error. After all, it in no way effects the reason for my quoting you multiple times

Oct 12, 2014
I typically write, edit, and copy/paste several posts at the same time in MS Word before posting them.

Here is the original post where I quoted you correctly on Oct 5.

(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death


(3) does not follow from (1)(2).

Interference is decoherence and by definition is NOT superposition collapse.

There is incompatibility between the deterministic evolution of the wave-function representing the system and the indeterministic state reduction. This ONLY occurs during a measurement/observation. This is a unresolved problem in QM, except by reference to "many world" like interpretations.


As you can see the original quote is sufficient to have made my point in quoting you.

Oct 12, 2014
@smd, when you erroneously claimed that the paper I linked to "discusses quantum consciousness", I did not call you a liar, nor did I call you a disgrace, nor did I insinuate that you should be banned,... I simply asked that you to clarify by supplying a direct quote from that paper.


Oct 12, 2014
[Corrected the above post for smd]

No, we don't, and the evidence is your own statement that it doesn't solve it, implying it's supposed to or that someone here tried to use it that way.


Only via your corrupt, deliberately obfuscating, a.d.d. logic would "does not" equate to "supposed to, or could". And I have reposted SMD's comment showing that either he implied that himself, or that it was at the very least reasonable for me to think so, which I still do. Here it is yet again,..

["(1) in a quantum system "observation" is the introduction of interference into the superposition state, (2) said interference occurs both randomly and by design (e.g., measurement), (3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death - smd"]


Oct 12, 2014
Here is the original garbled copy/paste from Oct 8th,...

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe well as entanglement death"

smd
Oct 12, 2014
While your apology would normally be welcomed, you continue to intentionally misrepresent what you've posted.

The only way these two statements could have been conflated in your posts is if you copied and pasted each one - from different comments from myself and Eikka, respectively - inserted the connective "as" and posted the false result, attributing it to me.

A "garbled copy/paste error" would not contain "as" between the two pasted statements unless you knowingly inserted it at that precise location - since it appears in neither of the original statements - in an attempt to convince other readers that your case was viable. Since you had to take the above steps to do so, it was intentionally deceptive.

Your tactics are reminiscent of corrupt political rhetoric in which an intentionally untrue statement, when caught, is followed up by an apology and a claim of having "misspoke." It fools no one who is paying attention.

Oct 12, 2014
Just another troll. Good bye, troll.

Oct 12, 2014
[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
LOL
You ARE paranoid
I'm not NOM

I never said you are, ....why are you so paranoid?
@nou
maybe he assumed you were trying to say he was based upon your allusions that Schneib was wrong, an internet troll rater, and your general comments give the insinuation that he is lying
You think that d'Espagnat is lying or do you think he is just factually wrong? I would believe him, as well as my own assessment, over an internet insulter and troll rater.
plus there is the fact that you've already been either overwhelmed by the comments or just regularly confused who you are talking to when you confused smd with Eikka

While I've yet to accuse you of lying, Noumenon, I do so now: I didn't write this - Eikka did
and had to apologize
Please accept my apology. It was actually NOT intentional
but you could not even admit fault
...I did not call you a liar...
make up your mind, philo man

Oct 12, 2014
Just another troll. Good bye, troll.
@Da Schneib
this is the problem with mixing philosophy with science, really
Nou tends to swing more towards philo talk which is usually subjective to the individual and not falsifiable (or argues semantics where it is irrelevant), whereas you are talking science which is supported by empirical data and such

this is one huge reason i feel IMHO there should be a division between philo and science, and that philo's should stick to subjective area's, not science


Oct 12, 2014
The only way these two statements could have been conflated in your posts is if you copied and pasted each one - from different comments from myself and Eikka, respectively - inserted the connective "as" and posted the false result, attributing it to me.


Nope, your original post contains "as well as", I did not add an "as". I already told you that I had both yours and Eikka's quotes in the same MS Word doc while editing.

Here is proof that it was not intended,... On Oct 9th I reposted that garbled quote in response to YOU. Now why would I intentionally misrepresent YOUR own quote to back to YOU?

Also, I KNEW the entire time that you were following this thread, so why would I misrepresent your post when I had already quoted you twice correctly?

All I can do is ask that you reconsider my apology and explanation. This requires all the more integrity from you because in discrediting me this way, you will benefit, and provide sustenance for Stumpy and Schnieb.

Oct 12, 2014
A "garbled copy/paste error" would not contain "as" between the two pasted statements unless you knowingly inserted it at that precise location - since it appears in neither of the original statements - in an attempt to convince other readers that your case was viable. Since you had to take the above steps to do so, it was intentionally deceptive.


This is factually incorrect.

Here is the garbled quote,....

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as [The causal effects of the interaction spread throughout the universe] well as entanglement death"

Here is the original quote,....

"(3) interference results in superposition collapse as well as entanglement death"

As you can clearly see, the erroneous addition between brackets does NOT add anything new from Eikka post to your own. In fact it does not even make grammatical sense. In addition the "The" is capitalized. Correcting the error would not negate my reasons for quoting you.

smd
Oct 12, 2014
Very well. Since my original statement had the secondary phrase beginning "as well as..." the error is conceivable. However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.

It is also not in your favor that your appear to never have reviewed the research paper - to which I provided a link several times - supporting my assertion that interference can indeed cause superposition collapse, since that was the initial crux of our discussion. Similarity, you made inflexible insertions about material with which you were not familiar, and posted an incorrect link without posting subsequently posting the correct one. This is the behavior of one who wants to win an argument at all costs rather than have a rational discussion.

If your want to be taken seriously in the future (as I want to believe that you do), you should (as well as others who practice them) abandon these counterproductive confrontational practices.

Oct 12, 2014
It is also not in your favor that your appear to never have reviewed the research paper - to which I provided a link several times - supporting my assertion that interference can indeed cause superposition collapse, since that was the initial crux of our discussion.


I responded that I did not read it because I thought you were conflating "interference of probability amplitudes and [environmental] decoherence". You did not respond further.

Instead, in your next series of posts you mentioned "consciousness transcends death", and "secular religion", and, "hypercosmic God", and "quantum consciousness",... none of which were contained in any sources I linked to. I could say that "this is the behavior of one who wants to win an argument at all costs" by discrediting with irrelevancies.

Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.

Oct 12, 2014
provide sustenance for Stumpy and Schnieb
@Nou
nice
i chimed in because you couldn't see what was right in front of you
and you were wrong but wouldn't admit it

You apologized, which was a good thing, but then tried to retract that with excuses, a-la rc and all the other trolls
I was going to give you stars for that, but then i noticed you are doing above what you are trying to scold others for doing...

THIS is the reason philo's and science don't mix
You can see proof above of your comments, along with your mistakes, but that is not important to you, only the star rating/etc is

well, to me only the SCIENCE is important
deal with it
and if you want to scold someone for downrating, start with yourself for being a hypocritical TROLL

After all... what was not factual about that post above, eh? LOL
your hypocrisy knows no bounds

P.S. BTW, your 1star only means that I hit a sore spot and i was right
but you can't see that either
nice

:-)
thanks

Oct 12, 2014
Similarity, you made inflexible insertions about material with which you were not familiar, and posted an incorrect link without [..] subsequently posting the correct one.


One of the main reasons internet discussions degenerate so quickly is because people make presumptions about another's intentions without it being possible to know.

I posted a link that I presumed would substantiate a comment made by a poster at PhysicsForums wrt Omnes. I already explained this above,...

I should not have relied on another's comment from physicsforums about Omnes book with myself having [not] read and verified it in the book (which may still be correct).

However this does not mean that I was lying. Here is the comment, 2nd from top.


The salient point still remains, the association of decoherence and the measurement problem.

Oct 12, 2014
You apologized, which was a good thing, but then tried to retract that with excuses


I did not attempt to "retract" my multiple apologies. I provided evidence so that smd would not think that I had done it intentionally to deceive.

THIS is the reason philo's and science don't mix


Perhaps if you studied either one or the other, you would realize that they are intertwined. Physicists DO speak philosophically, that is a fact. I am not interested in a pointless Otto style debate on this. Clearly the book that I linked to above "Physics and Philosophy" was written by a physicist.

smd
Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.


You are unreal. This is not the first time I mentioned it.

Moreover, your point is specious: It's your responsibility as the author of the comment to ensure that your post is accurate and as intended. Period.

Oct 12, 2014
You can see proof above of your comments, along with your mistakes, but that is not important to you, only the star rating/etc is


You give me no reason to suppose that you followed the above discussion.

I am probably the only phys.org member who has repeatably requested that phys.org disable ratings altogether. They are being used as a weapon. NOM is associated with phys.org and 1-rates me no matter what I post. That is a corruption of the system by a phys.org employee.

If I cared about ratings I would only post things that are instantly agreeable given the mentality of phys.org,.... and post "where is the evidence" or 'where is the proof", and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's.

Oct 12, 2014
I provided evidence
@Nou
ok
Perhaps if you studied either one or the other
I studied physical science and I am in physics courses now, but preferring the psychology and criminal justice courses
you would realize that they are intertwined
no, they are not, really
Physicists DO speak philosophically, that is a fact
And I have seen Otto quote the bible, but that don't make him a catholic priest now, does it?
This is where we have separate opinions
Is there a benefit to asking questions and contemplating the answers? yes
is there a benefit to analytical contemplation? yes
does that make it a science? no
the fundamental difference is that, as an investigator, I prefer to be able to find answers that are not falsifiable which define something that is not subjective to the individual, which philo-talk can't do

This is where you and I will never agree, as well

a physicist spouting philo- again: just because I can spout poetry doesn't mean I am Shakespeare

Oct 12, 2014
Thank you for at least acknowledging that the error was conceivable.

However, I have some difficulty in seeing how you did not notice the result of your error before posting your comment.


Probably for the same reason that you only noticed it today, four days after the fact,... and since it was your own quote one would think you would have noticed it before me. In fact had you not corrected it today, I would have continued to quote in for months and months completely oblivious.


You are unreal. This is not the first time I mentioned it.

Moreover, your point is specious: It's your responsibility as the author of the comment to ensure that your post is accurate and as intended. Period.


I took responsibility for that error.

I just went through all you previous posts, and don't see where you had discovered that error prior to today.

Oct 12, 2014
they are intertwined
con't
they have been historically, but there was also a historical connection between astronomy and astrology, but you wouldn't say that they are intertwined today, would you?
I sure wouldn't unless specifically discussing the historical facts
You give me no reason to suppose that you followed the above discussion
whatever
you've still given no proof of general agreement that
It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem
I watch QM because i am interested... believe what you want, nou
I am probably the only phys.org member who has repeatably requested that phys.org disable ratings altogether
No... a lot of other trolls have asked for them to be disabled as well
I have found them to be useful in some occasions
Especially when I find a poster i don't know and I look at who is rating and then read those comments to find out why

but you wouldn't understand that with your "know everything" attitude

Oct 12, 2014
and post "where is the evidence" or 'where is the proof", and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's
@Nou cont'd
i came here initially to learn
but then I noticed that there were a snot-load of posters that tended to post those fringe ideas that had no real basis in reality and were violating the laws of physics.
There was a cool buzzword that people gave those ideas called: pseudoscience
I spent a LOT of the first year before I ever made a profile to post reading up on the pseudoscience and learning the wrong stuff... I learned when I started taking more college that they were absolutely wrong

This is why I push for evidence and a foundation with education to combat BS pseudoscience

and I consider it a personal mission to point out pseudoscience to others so that they do NOT make the same mistake

or confuse philo double-talk with actual science

you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
that is why we don't agree

Oct 12, 2014
@Stumpy, I don't care to engage in a debate about whether philosophy has relevance to physics. It is too asinine. Do you honestly think you know better than d'Espagnat or the many other physicists who make contributions to the philosophy of physics. What do you think interpretations of QM or GR are? Do you think that I think science progresses by thought alone? How can you deny that the field of 'philosophy of physics' exists as a matter of fact. There are many great writing's on the subject, I suggest instead of denying them, take a look.


Oct 12, 2014
No where have I ever claimed that philosophy in any way replaces physics. That is you fallacious argument.

you've still given no proof of general agreement that

It is claimed by many that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem


As I suspected, you did not follow the thread. Had you done so you would have noticed that I did indeed provide several statements by prominent physicists saying just that.

Oct 12, 2014
you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
that is why we don't agree


Did you just pull that one from your a$$? I do not deny the core science of AGW.

or confuse philo double-talk with actual science


Which is the problem with Uncle_Ira,... that because he at present does not understand something, it should mean that it is not understandable. This is fallacious logic and stems from your own refusal to admit you do not understand.

So I try to convince you in other ways that philosophy has relevance by mentioning physicists who know so. Here is another,... Abraham Pais was a well known nuclear physicist, who stated that N. Bohr was a natural successor to I. Kant, a prominent philosopher. Hmmmm, now why would he say that?


Oct 12, 2014
Do you honestly think you know better than d'Espagnat or the many other physicists who make contributions to the philosophy of physics
@Nou
redirect the argument into an argument from authority?
Do you think that I think science progresses by thought alone?
already answered this one- science is about evidence, philo is about thought
instead of denying them, take a look
why would I read philo when I can read about physics?
No where have I ever claimed that philosophy in any way replaces physics. That is you fallacious argument
This is what Da Schneib calls a LIE. please show me where I say philo replaces physics, thanks
Had you done so you would have noticed
i only saw two. 2 is NOT a consensus or even MANY unless the population of physicists has shrunk considerably since last night.... has it?

Please point out all these "many" scientists to me again? re-post in quote format, if you would

Oct 12, 2014
Did you just pull that one from your a$$?
I pulled it out of your post and made an assumption based upon this comment
and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's
BTW- you cannot prove that I ever said the Koch bro's are evil because i never have... that is a cultural thing
I said that they are trying to undermine science
I do not deny the core science of AGW
You give me no reason to suppose that you believe in the core science of AGW
adding a qualifier before AGW means that you disagree with some of it... please feel free to link any of those studies and show a reputable study refuting it
the problem with Uncle_Ira
I am NOT IRA and where did I ever say
that because he at present does not understand something, it should mean that it is not understandable
I have said that if you cannot say it in a manner that a youth could understand then likely you don't understand the subject as well as you think... but that is different

Oct 12, 2014
I don't care to engage in a debate about whether philosophy has relevance to physics. It is too asinine
you are absolutely right. it is asinine
physics requires proof

and I will not bother discussing it either, because you are making false assumptions anyway
So I try to convince you in other ways that philosophy has relevance by mentioning physicists who know so
And this only shows that YOU are not reading the thread

i said that philo has its benefits, but it is NOT science, nor do i believe it is intertwined with it except historically
i don't agree with you that philo is as important as you make it out to be
it is only a way of creating a set of internal controls to manipulate the observations and try to justify the external world

I use empirical evidence, not philo

nuff said?

Oct 12, 2014
@Stumpy
The issue was never that it was a consensus. Did you just invent that goal post?

The point was that several prominent physicists think that "It has lately become fashionable to claim that decoherence has solved the quantum measurement problem" and "It is generally agreed that decoherence theory is, if not a complete answer, at least a great step forward towards a solution of the quantum measurement problem.", etc. Those assessments, by prominent physicists are what refutes DaSchnieb objection to my posting "Btw, decoherence does not resolve this measurement problem" as superfluous or logically unnecessary to do here at a science news site.

I have no interest in debating the Relevance of philosophy to science. As I understand, SMD has some interest and background in philosophy to science (?), perhaps you can disagree with him on it.

Oct 12, 2014
you ignore empirical evidence and science (like AGW)
Did you just pull that one from your a$$?

I pulled it out of your post and made an assumption based upon this comment
and "the Koch brothers are evil", over and over to collect my 5's


So had I thought the Koch brothers were evil, this would mean that I agree with AGW? I don't follow your logic here.

I do not deny the core science of AGW

You give me no reason to suppose that you believe in the core science of AGW

So you are claiming I reject the core science of AGW by default?
...adding a qualifier before AGW means that you disagree with some of it... please feel free to link any of those studies and show a reputable study refuting it

Why would I do this when as I already told you I don't reject the core science of AGW? Perhaps I will post again in another thread about AGW, and you can engage me then in context.

Oct 12, 2014
i said that philo has its benefits, but it is NOT science, nor do i believe it is intertwined with it except historically


This stems from your not studying the relationship, not from there not being one. Also, why say philo is not science,... when no one says that it is?

i don't agree with you that philo is as important as you make it out to be


On what grounds? Do know better than d'Espagnat because he wrote an entire book on it, and several other had done so as well.

Perhaps SMD will argue this with you.

Oct 12, 2014
Did you just invent that goal post?
@Nou
read the rest of that line
or even MANY unless the population of physicists has shrunk considerably since last night.... has it?
and the word consensus would imply a general agreement, so when you post
It is generally agreed that
then you can assume there is a consensus, IMHO
this is the semantics that you've been arguing above... and the point Schneib was making

but when challenged on how one person makes a consensus or a majority, you write
Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent
(Oh, no... i didn't read the thread at all, nou... i am just guessing here, right?) so you got two and then still had the audacity to cling to the "generally agreed" quote
this is called "getting caught with your pants down" and now you are refusing to fess up the error (and YES, the burden of proof was upon you, not us, as you made the claims, not us)

to be continued

Oct 12, 2014
The point was that several prominent ...
cont'd
no, the point was that you created a physicists "generally agreed" out of two freakin physicists
refutes DaSchnieb
Schneib was saying the same thing I am here: 2 people is NOT the same thing as "generally agreed"
I don't follow your logic here
your negative connotation makes me think you are against the science that proves AGW... and that I am strictly posting for ratings
I post for the science
there is a LOT of science proving AGW, none disproving it
I reject the core science of AGW by default?
which is exactly what you've been doing above to myself and others (see also below "Do know better than d'Espagnat because" [sic])
live with it, it was a lesson
learn it and move on
your not studying the relationship
personal conjecture
just because i don't like it doesn't mean i haven't studied it

you are simply arguing in circles now because you don't wish to admit more fault
Ok
fine
Try re-reading

Oct 12, 2014
and the word consensus would imply a general agreement, so when you post
It is generally agreed that.

then you can assume there is a consensus, IMHO... this is the semantics that you've been arguing above.


That was a quote by d'Espagnat,... who then says "..This assertion [that decoherence actually solves the measurement problem] however is FAR FROM being endorsed by all physicists".

So again, it is not about consensus, nor ever was. I never employed that argument, nor do I need to.

but when challenged on how one person makes a consensus or a majority, you write

Your efforts in making him out to be a quack are transparent


That statement by me had zero relation to any mention of consensus. It had to do with smd's irrelevant posts about "hypercosmic god", "quantum consciousness", and religion.

Get your facts straight. And it would help if you did not parse quotes into pieces before arguing with them.

Oct 12, 2014
CapS. Your comments to Noumenon are infested with your own hypocrisy and insensibility....
... a-la rc and all the other trolls
You just AGAIN gratuitously invoked me in your personality-cult ego-rants to others. So blame yourself for this response.

...but then i noticed you are doing above what you are trying to scold others for doing...
your hypocrisy knows no bounds
Says the proven troll who accuses others being trolls while AGAIN gratuitously trolling baits and misrepresentations about me above.

P.S. BTW, your 1star only means that I hit a sore spot and i was right
but you can't see that either
Says the block-bot-gang 1's downvoting troll who rates based on his personal-political 'list' irrespective of posted content.

CapS, if you can't see yourself as others see you, don't pretend to the high ground. Your continuing hypocrisy and insensibility makes you the last person in any position to 'judge' others. So zip it, soldier! And stop digging!

NOM
Oct 12, 2014
[p.s. The NOM troll has a lot of cowardly clicking of 1's to do]
Done.

... and now you have lots of hypocritical 5's to stroke yourself with. Wank away.

Oct 12, 2014
Careful when saying that to him, NOM; remember: "people in glass houses" and all that, hey? He may be 'doing it for himself', as you say; but the daisy-chain-wanking-troll-gang you run with does it 'in the round' for each other. Yuk! And then of course, you 'do it in the dark' as well. Why doesn't your rating page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...show any comments from you at all, not even the one above?


Oct 12, 2014
Careful when saying that to him, NOM; remember: "people in glass houses" and all that, hey? He may be 'doing it for himself', as you say; but the daisy-chain-wanking-troll-gang you run with does it 'in the round' for each other. Yuk! And then of course, you 'do it in the dark' as well. Why doesn't your rating page...

https://sciencex....ser/NOM/

...show any comments from you at all, not even the one above?



Because he is a dolt who likes to advertise that Phys.Org employs trolls who abuse their own comment rating system.

[Btw, NOM, it is not hypocritical of me to fight back against rating trolls. Your ratings are invalid]