How the quantum Zeno effect impacts Schroedinger's cat

June 16, 2017
Credit: Washington University in St. Louis

You've probably heard about Schrödinger's cat, which famously is trapped in a box with a mechanism that is activated if a radioactive atom decays, releasing radiation. The act of looking in the box collapses the atom's wave function—the mathematical description of its state —from a "superposition" of states to a definite state, which either kills the cat or let's it live another day.

But did you know that if you peek into the cat box frequently—thousands of times a second—you can either delay the fateful choice or, conversely, accelerate it? The delay is known as the quantum Zeno effect and the acceleration as the quantum anti-Zeno effect.

The quantum Zeno effect was named by analogy with the arrow paradox conceived by the Greek philosopher Zeno: At any given instant of time, an arrow in flight is motionless; how then can it move? Similarly, if an atom could be continually measured to see if it is still in its initial state, it would always be found to be in that state.

Both the Zeno and an the anti-Zeno effects are real and happen to real . But how does this work? How can measurement either delay or accelerate the decay of the radioactive atom? What is "measurement," anyway?

The physicist's answer is that in order to obtain information about a quantum system, the system must be strongly coupled to the environment for a brief period of time. So the goal of measurement is to obtain information, but the strong coupling to the environment means that the act of measurement also necessarily disturbs the quantum system.

But what if the system was disturbed but no information was passed to the outside world? What would happen then? Would the atom still exhibit the Zeno and anti-Zeno effects?

Kater Murch's group at Washington University in St. Louis has been exploring these questions with an called a qubit. To test the role of measurement in the Zeno effects, they devised a new type of measurement interaction that disturbs the atom but learns nothing about its state, which they call a "quasimeasurement."

They report in the June 14, 2017, issue of Physical Review Letters that quasimeasurements, like measurements, cause Zeno effects. Potentially the new understanding of the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics could led to new ways of controlling quantum systems.

Explore further: Researchers prevent quantum errors from occurring by continuously watching a quantum system

More information: P.?M. Harrington et al. Quantum Zeno Effects from Measurement Controlled Qubit-Bath Interactions, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.240401

Related Stories

'Zeno effect' verified—atoms won't move while you watch

October 23, 2015

One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists. Their work opens the door to a fundamentally new method ...

New sensor devices recycle atoms

April 12, 2017

Next-generation sensors to be used in fields as diverse as mineral exploration and climate change will be turbo boosted thanks to University of Queensland and University of Sussex research.

Recommended for you

Making ferromagnets stronger by adding non-magnetic elements

June 23, 2017

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory discovered that they could functionalize magnetic materials through a thoroughly unlikely method, by adding amounts of the virtually non-magnetic element scandium ...

107 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
Paradoxes like Zeno's fallaciously depend on an integral instant being real, which they are not. There is no "instant in time" as an integral unit or state, because time is not an integral dimension - it's a fractal:
http://iopscience...012/meta

I wonder if the math of the theory used for this experiment was reconciled with time's fractality.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2017
Hmmm, this seems like it has some interaction with decoherence. It seems to indicate that decoherence is imposed by any interaction with the environment, whether it results in a measurement or not.
thijsAlan
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2017
They have finally solved the classic problem, if a tree falls in a forest, will it make a sound if no one is there to hear it.
IronhorseA
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Technically, the cat will give off body heat which will heat up the inner surface of the box, where it will transfer to the exterior of the box. The cat is always under observation, if not by a human, then by all the subatomic particles in the vicinity.
someone11235813
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
It seems obvious that if you peek in the box and close it again that it has now reset.

They have finally solved the classic problem, if a tree falls in a forest, will it make a sound if no one is there to hear it.


There is no sound, nothing strange about that at all. Just like there is no 'colour', EM waves are not colour, similarly rapid waves of air pressure are not sound. Colour is a mind/brain phenomenon as is sound.

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
Da Schneib:
decoherence is imposed by any interaction with the environment, whether it results in a measurement or not.


Any interaction with its environment is what is called "measurement". Otherwise what would privilege a conscious observer, which is after all just a collection of matter and energy in space.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
@Emcee, part of the problem here is the definition of measurement. Based on quantum optics experiments, starting with the original Young dual slit experiment and moving on through the DCQE by Scully et al., it seems that it's not a matter of whether a conscious being *does* see the measurement, but whether one *could*. To put it another way, if the interaction involved in the measurement determines a superposed variable, then the measured particle's superposed variable takes on a definite value; in some interpretations of quantum mechanics this is called "wavefunction collapse," and to add to the confusion it is also called "observation" in some of the literature. This is decoherence. I think the term "decoherence" was coined to indicate this kind of "measurement" where the value is not actually observed; the use of "measurement" implies some sort of observation, whereas "decoherence" only denotes interaction that determines a previously superposed value.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
[contd]
As a result, as I consider this, I think decoherence is a better term than either measurement or observation. If some event is measured or observed, that's something that happens after the actual particle's previously superposed (i.e. uncertain, in the Heisenberg sense) parameter is decohered; the "measuring device" or conscious observer *deduces* the value of the parameter, but first comes the decoherence.

I also think that there is a great deal of confusion over this, and has been, even in the scholarly literature. So you are right to point it out.

I am doing some research, and I think I might have oversimplified on my first post on this thread; in addition, I failed to discuss the quantum anti-Zeno effect. Decoherence is involved, but incomplete.

I'll have more comments later after finishing my research, but you might find both the Wikipedia article on the quantum Zeno effect of interest, as well as this paper: https://www.natur...rep01752
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
Da Schneib:
the definition of measurement.


My understanding is that the "measurement" event for a superposed quantum state is fulfilled by photon exchange with any other discrete (even if also superposed) quantum state. Hence any photon interaction is a measurement.

Measurement doesn't require "conscious" observation (ie. by an intelligence like a human), because "conscious" is simply a condition of the measuring system (eg. a human) that happens to represent the interaction in an internal state that interacts with other states to receive the information of the external system's state. So a photon, (not conscious like a human is) still measures the state of another system that has a state (eg. a particle). The interaction of the two states sufficient to change the measuring system's quantum state is sufficient to measure and so collapse the measured system's quantum state into a definite state. The collapsed state's values determine the changes to the measuring state.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2017
@Emcee, not just photon exchange, though that is the most often-mentioned interaction. *Any* interaction-- with any kind of particle-- can result in a decohered (previously coherent) parameter.

I think that any measurement system whatsover requires an interaction which can (and usually does) introduce decoherence. I think we agree on this.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
Da Schneib:
@Emcee, not just photon exchange, though that is the most often-mentioned interaction. *Any* interaction-- with any kind of particle-- can result in a decohered (previously coherent) parameter.


I agree. I wasn't really clear, but that's what I meant by "is fulfilled by photon exchange" (I meant "at a minimum").

The point is that "quantum measurement" === "any interaction between discrete sets of quantum states". Though I wouldn't be surprised if there are clever ways to get a quantum state to decohere by interacting with itself, perhaps as it spreads within its reference frame.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
Decoherence is loss of interference effects of the wavefunction, and so loss of quantum behaviour,.... i.e. it is of course possible to isolate a quantum system long enough so that one can observe the odd behavior of quantum mechanics after all [for an ensemble of identical systems].

Decoherence should not be regarded as simply equivalent to 'a measurement',... because it does not solve the 'measurement problem' without an additional interpretational layer. All such interpretational layers of quantum mechanics that are empirically indistinguishable, de facto, contain a subjective component. This is why consciousness (or more properly, mind) IS a necessary component of what is scientifically considered as 'a measurement'.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
,... among other reasons,.... such as, the mind dependent conceptual layer that is necessary in performing 'a measurement'. For example, 'the underlying quantum entity' is neither a wave nor a particle, but rather these are conceptual-forms that are conditioned and dependent upon the experimental arrangement,... an arrangement designed by a classical-mind.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
LOL, @Noum tries again. Sorry, @Noum, you're still on ignore from the last time. I'm not interested in another conversation with a #philosopherposingasaphysicist. Not to mention another #physicscrank.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
Still childish I see and quick to degenerate into a unnecessary confrontation. Ignore means ignore, yet you still read in secret and reply anyway. I have never held a crank theory in my life.

If some event is measured or observed, that's something that happens after the actual particle's previously superposed [...] parameter is decohered - DaSchneib


Decoherence does not imply that the superposed state goes away, [as in 'previously superposed'], as decoherence does not 'collapse the wavefunction',... the entire wavefunction still exists,... [hence many-worlds theory if one interprets Ψ as a physical thing].

'After decoherence', is what classical physics is.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
... and a quantum entities 'parameters values' are not superposed. The values obtained from measurement are defined by the experimental apparatus (represented by the operator applied to the wavefunction) and the wavefunction is accordingly normalized.

yea, I can be a d!ck as well, but one with more substance,
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
@Noum proves to be a liar again. I never posted "parameters values." You are lying again, @Noum. This is why I will not talk to you and why I have no hesitation in labeling you a #physicscrank and a #liar. You always lie, and you always get caught.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2017
You stated "superposed parameter" in the context of decoherence,..... how else am I to take this?

Even if I was wrong in the way I read this statement, this doesn't mean I "lied". Yet, you are quick to render that aspersion, as well as calling me a "crank", despite that I have never advocated for any such idea in my life, so there being zero basis for such an attack. Further you lied about putting me on ignore.

Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2017
@Noum, you're lying again. You misquoted me, and now you're making up a rationale for doing so that doesn't involve you lying, which, since you misquoted me, it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer you are.

I am not impressed by your lies, and I am not impressed by your rationalizations for telling them. Get over it.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
Now, can we launch #physicscrank and #troll @Noum and resume the conversation about real physics? Or do we need to bait this #troll some more?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2017
Noumenon:
All such interpretational layers of quantum mechanics that are empirically indistinguishable, de facto, contain a subjective component. This is why consciousness (or more properly, mind) IS a necessary component of what is scientifically considered as 'a measurement'.


No. A "mind" is simply a self-reflexive collection of information that 1> has information about an other; 2> has information about that information, including that it has the information; 3> has more information about that information, potentially many "meta" layers deep.

Only information gained from a discrete quantum other is necessary to decohere the other as "measurement". A stack of derivative information about information is not necessary. A mind is not necessary, only an other quantum system that interacts to be changed by it.
Dingbone
not rated yet Jun 18, 2017
How can measurement either delay or accelerate the decay of the radioactive atom? What is "measurement" anyway?
Once the observer observes something, then he(r) (or rather his/her observational device) also gets entangled with observed object. The resulting system behaves like more classical ensemble of multiple objects thus allowing to circumvent some limitations of uncertainty principle which are valid for isolated quantum objects only. In my theory the entanglement has complex composite nature and it results from mixture of multiple phenomena in both intrinsic, both extrinsic nature. The intrinsic aspect of entanglement is based on synchronizing of pilot waves of observer and object observed, the extrinsic one is based on shielding longitudinal waves of vacuum between them (short distance analogy of dark matter filaments and Allais effect). In this way or another, the quantum undulations of observer and observed object get connected which leads into collapse of wave function.
Dingbone
not rated yet Jun 18, 2017
These phenomena all have their water surface analogies - here you can for example observe group of mutually entangled droplets which are undulating at the water surface in unison like so-called boson condensate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
Still childish I see and quick to degenerate into a unnecessary confrontation. Ignore means ignore, yet you still read in secret and reply anyway. I have never held a crank theory in my life
-Except for that whole quantum mysticism/Kant channeled schroedinger business.

Just because a few idle senile scientists start speculating on brain microtubules while sitting in the garden on sunny spring afternoons, does not mean their musings are anything more than krankstoff.

They want to live forever too ya know?
yea, I can be a d!ck as well
- and you can also be surveillance_egg_unit among others who just happens to return from somnambulance just to uprate your new posts.

When you manipulate your own reality it also collapses, yes? Like physics-
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
to diss Kant you have to read copr
-naw I stopped reading comic books I just watch the movies now. Hey is there a Kant movie coming out? That would be trippier than doc strange. But still a flop-
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
A mind is not necessary, only an other quantum system that interacts to be changed by it.


A mind is not necessary to acquire scientific predictive knowledge of phenomena? I'm sure you're not saying this?

The point of Schrodinger cat paradox is to point out the conceptual difficulty of defining what exactly is 'a measurement'. [Also see "von Neumann's cut"] One can arrange an experiment with a human in place of a cat so that the physicist outside this otherwise isolated system can consider it as a single deterministically evolving system with a wave-function description, so that indeed there is nothing special about the human mind inside the isolated system.

Also keep in mind that to speak of "a quantum system" it is invalid to image such a system independently of theoretical description,... i.e. the wavefunction description for multiple entities does not evolve in regular 3D space, but rather a mathematical tensor product space.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
A mind
of course you mean brain
is not necessary to acquire scientific predictive knowledge of phenomena?
-No its not...

"plant perception may be seen as an active process of probabilistic inference akin to that found in animals (Kok et al., 2013). Plants under this interpretation are pro-active; they actively sample their environment to generate information, estimating the likelihood that one external state of affairs, and not another, is the source of energy impinging upon its sensory periphery."

-written by the guys at 'Minimal Intelligence Lab (MINT Lab), Department of Philosophy, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain'

- which is curious as there is lots of minimal intelligence in philo departments.

And of course dumb animals exhibit all sorts of predictive anticipatory behavior of 'scientific' (read natural) phenomena all the time and they do not have what you would call a mind either. Nor a soul.

More things in common with the common philo.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
I have never held a crank theory in my life

-Except for that whole quantum mysticism/Kant channeled schroedinger business.

I don't believe in anything mystical, and in fact am very much anti-metaphysics in science. Not that I have any illusions that you would have any substantive interest in physics beyond trolling as usual.

and you can also be surveillance_egg_unit among others who just happens to return from somnambulance just to uprate your new posts.


Wrong again. It wouldn't surprise me if that was your sock puppet, used just to render that charge, such is your focus on trolling me.

Wouldn't it require less mental effort for you to just learn physics, to tell me where I'm wrong,.... perhaps I would benefit as well?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2017
I don't believe in anything mystical
No, you don't believe that what you believe in is mystical. There is a difference.
https://en.wikipe...ysticism
that was your sock puppet
-what, use a sock puppet to uprate you in order to make it look like YOU are guilty of sockpuppetry? Haha

I am neither that smart nor that stupid. Nor that concerned.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
A mind is not necessary to acquire scientific predictive knowledge of phenomena?

-No its not...


Quoted for posterity and those who can appreciate good comedy.

What does "knowledge" and "understanding" mean, Otto? What does "phenomena" mean, Otto? These terms have meaning only in reference to "a mind". Of course the "mind" has a physical basis, the brain, that in principle is explicable in terms of a scientific description,....i.e. the mind is an epiphenomenon that is scientifically investigable in principle as is any other phenomena. I agree with this,... but "predictive theoretical knowledge" which is the point of science, is not, nor can be in the same form as, or identical with the "actual" independent reality that is being investigated,... otherwise you enter into Hegallian metaphysical idealism, the worst kind of philosophy.



Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
.... IOW, a theoretical description or 'scientific knowledge' is not itself the Independent Reality. Scientific knowledge is subject to conditions that are mind-dependent.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." – Albert Einstein

I don't believe in anything mystical

No, you don't believe that what you believe in is mystical. There is a difference.

Perhaps it is more probable that what you think is mystical in my posts stems from your lack of knowledge of physics which indeed would make my posts appear mysterious to you?

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
Noumenon:
A mind is not necessary, only an other quantum system that interacts to be changed by it.


A mind is not necessary to acquire scientific predictive knowledge of phenomena? I'm sure you're not saying this?


No, I did not say that; I said nothing about "acquire scientific predictive knowledge of phenomena". I said: 'Only information gained from a discrete quantum other is necessary to [b]decohere the other as "measurement"[/b]. '

Noumenon:
The point of Schrodinger cat paradox is to point out the conceptual difficulty of defining what exactly is 'a measurement'.


No, the point is to illlustrate that until the "cat" (quantum state) is "measured" (interacts with an outside quantum state) the cat has all possible states, until that interaction forces the cat to have one state. It's not a paradox.

You're conflating "predictive scientific knowledge" of a mind with "minimum interaction to collapse the superposition into a definite state". I'm not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2017
What does "knowledge" and "understanding" mean, Otto? What does "phenomena" mean, Otto?
Trick questions. As we both know, to philos they are spaghetti words that can mean anything they want them to mean.
Perhaps it is more probable that what you think is mystical in my posts stems from your lack of knowledge of physics
No I always cite sources from people who know far more than me, and far more than you think you know. Or at least pretend to know.

BTW Einstein had a nice garden as well. I've seen it.

Your quote has nothing to do with the points you are trying to make or the 'knowledge' you purport to possess.

It's just posturing you know?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
You're conflating "predictive scientific knowledge" of a mind with "minimum interaction to collapse the superposition into a definite state".


There is no other sense of scientific understanding except that of theoretical predictive knowledge as obtained by a mind via description, period. You can't side step that and speak of what goes on as if independent of observation. Whatever you are calling "interaction", would have a corresponding theoretical description in terms of a wavefunction and a deterministic equation.

A quantum interaction, as described in terms of a wavefunction decoherence with the environment description, does not "collapse the superposition.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
but "predictive theoretical knowledge" which is the point of science, is not, nor can be in the same form as, or identical with the "actual" independent reality that is being investigated,... otherwise you enter into Hegallian metaphysical idealism, the worst kind of philosophy

https://youtu.be/wX_PoFDPuaM

- Your next trick... spelling Hegel wrong...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
The point of Schrodinger cat paradox is to point out the conceptual difficulty of defining what exactly is 'a measurement'.


No, the point is to illlustrate that until the "cat" (quantum state) is "measured" (interacts with an outside quantum state) the cat has all possible states, until that interaction forces the cat to have one state. It's not a paradox.


It's referred to as a "paradox". I'm afraid you are mistaken here. The point of this thought experiment was to elucidate the problem of measurement,. i.e. when does a quantum system cease to be a superposition of all possible states to become a single observed state. Why didn't the physicist or cat in the isolated box "collapse the state",… why only when the physicist outside the system who has the full wavefunction description, collapse the state upon observation. That is the point.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
Of course the "mind" has a physical basis, the brain, that in principle is explicable in terms of a scientific description
So does a newt have a mind?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
..... since there are a number of empirically indistinguishable interpretations of QM that attempt to resolve this,..... a mind is a necessary component.

The conflation seems to be this-> that you wish to reference 'quantum interactions' without referencing the theoretical description. It is not as if there is this physical-wavefunction-information-thingy that physically interacts with the environment and then reduces to a classical quantity. First decoherence does not collapse the wavefunction description. Second, the descriptive nature of QM requires that the space in which the wavefunction deterministically evolves does so in a potentially infinite dimensional space (Hilbert mathematical space),... not normal classical space. Third, the mathematical operators which the wavefunction is subject to, is to represent the classical experimental arrangement and is the free choice of the physicist performing the experiment, along with whatever classical concepts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
,... thus a measurement, de facto, involves the mind of the physicist. As mentioned above, it is not as if the 'underlying reality' IS a particle or a wave,..... it is that the experiment designed at the classical scale by a thinking mind, actively defined the conceptual form in which we describe this reality.

There are other mind-dependent choices made in QM with respect to maintaining one classical concept at the expense of giving up another because it fails.,.... locality, distinguishability, causality, wave, particle, indeterminism,.. etc
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
... when one refers to "a measurement" in physics, one is referencing a 'gauging' of the physical system, a controlled, classically designed, and subsequently interpreted, interaction of one physical system with that of another. This is what a scientific measurement is, an "observation".

If you are referencing a hypothetical physical 'quantum interaction' that is to happen outside the lab away from any experimentalist and without invoking theoretical description, then you are speaking metaphysics or philosophy [which could be interesting in itself as naturally the goal is to understand]

The nature of the experimental apparatus arrangement (scientific observation) defines how the quantum system behaves and in what conceptual form the results are discussed in,... by a mind.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
Your quote has nothing to do with the points you are trying to make or the 'knowledge' you purport to possess.


You seem to like to "proclaim things". Your point is clearly confrontation rather than discussion.

Lets try again,...

"..'predictive theoretical [...i.e. mathematical ...] knowledge' which is the point of science, is not, nor can be in the same form as, or identical with the 'actual' independent reality that is being investigated"

=>

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." – Albert Einstein

i.e. Everett's many-worlds interpretation of QM stemmed from letting the mathematical formalism do the job of the physicist (mind). The result was metaphysical baggage, unobservable and thus uncertain.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
Of course the "mind" has a physical basis, the brain, that in principle is explicable in terms of a scientific description
So does a newt have a mind?


Do you? Would you admit here that you don't have a mind by your own mindlessness theory?

Do you still think that D. Dennett doesn't think that mind's exist as a phenomenon? He does. He simply denied that consciousness is a thing over and above physical reality, and thought he could simply deny the problem of consciousness as a solution. Laziness. Recognizing the phenomena of consciousness does not equate to denying it a physical basis.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
So does a newt have a mind or not?

And is it measuring the reality of a hole that it has just dug when it guages the observation that its dimensions are adequate to protect it from the elements?

You think all this measuring and gauging and observing is enough to collapse a waveform or 2?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2017
How about this... say we hook up a newt to an apparatus that will automatically give him a mite if he tongues a little switch that runs the apparatus and collapses a waveform?

He doesn't even have to understand the nature of decoherence or n dimensional space, he just has to use his tongue like the lady who seals the envelope on your unemployment check.

So does the waveform collapse? Mind you we will have to make the switch taste like a mite for him to participate. But the lady tonguing the envelope has no such immediate rational justification. Neither did Pavlovs dog for that matter.

Does this mean it didn't have a mind? Does the lady have a mind?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
Noumenon:
You're conflating "predictive scientific knowledge" of a mind with "minimum interaction to collapse the superposition into a definite state".


There is no other sense of scientific understanding except that of theoretical predictive knowledge as obtained by a mind via description, period.


You're the only one debating the meaning of "scientific understanding". You brought it up, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. That's a straw man fallacy.

A quantum interaction, as described in terms of a wavefunction decoherence with the environment description, does not "collapse the superposition.


Of course it does. Here's an explanation that's geared to beginners, which I'm being charitable in considering you. Until you have the basics down don't disagree with them.
http://www.physic...ion.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2017
@Emcee, I figured I'd let you find out about @Noum on your own. Strawman fallacies are the least of its armament; it pretends to be a philosopher and you will find out what this means if you bother to continue to engage it.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
You're the only one debating the meaning of "scientific understanding". You brought it up, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. That's a straw man fallacy.


By implying that consciousness is not required to do a measurement, and that any quantum interaction is effectively a measurement, it is you and DaSchneib who are questioning basic science, and me who is correcing you.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
A quantum interaction, as described in terms of a wavefunction decoherence with the environment [..], does not "collapse the superposition.


Of course it does. [...] Until you have the basics down don't disagree with them.


You're not in a position to take an insulting tone with me....

From Wiki and just about any text on the subject,....

"Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment."

It other words it gives an heuristic explanation for why classical behavior results when a quantum system interacts with the environment.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Apparently you didn't comprehend the Schrodinger example above that I posted. The isolated physicist and apparatus inside with the quantum system , does not collapse the wavefunction, instead the way QM actually works as opposed to how you image it to work, is that the entire system and environment becomes ONE superposition of states, one wavefunction.

I mean for christ sakes, if decoherence solved the measurement problem by collapsing into one state, we wouldn't have multiple, empirically indistinguishable, interpretations of QM. The entire point of the MWI for example is what to do with the 'rest of the wavefunction'.

You're going to degenerate into immaturity as well? Btw, I am not the one who brought up the notion that consciousness is not required for "a measurement",.... I am only guilty of thinking that might lead to an interesting discussion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
By implying that consciousness is not required to do a measurement
Good point. Does a newt have consciousness? What is the minimum IQ required for consciousness? What are the specific parts of a brain required for mind-ness and consciousness? Do these parts need to be of a minimum size or complexity?

What's that? We don't know the answers to these questions yet? Well we don't know yet where the soul resides or where ESP is located as these aspects resist experimental analysis in exactly the same way. Even though guys like you are certain they exist because - well - they just have to dont they?

But once we do find them I am sure we will all be able to get into heaven, and we will be able to fly ourselves there to boot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
By implying that consciousness is not required to do a measurement, and that any quantum interaction is effectively a measurement, it is you and DaSchneib who are questioning basic science
You can't do basic science using indefinable terms. Before you try to do science you have to first define 'consciousness' and 'mind' scientifically. Meaning, you cant just use more words to define them.

You cant do that.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
@EmseeSquared,...

More from Wiki, not that rude behavior deserves further consideration on my part.....

-"A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue."

[and as mentioned above a layer of interpretation implies a conscience observer, thus measurement requires a conscious observer]

- "Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive."

[But which state of the ((effectively) ensemble)? Which basis? The deterministic Schrodinger equation, from which decoherence was mathematically derived, DOES NOT TELL US]

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
By implying that consciousness is not required to do a measurement, [..you...] are questioning basic science
You can't do basic science using indefinable terms. Before you try to do science you have to first define 'consciousness' and 'mind' scientifically. Meaning, you cant just use more words to define them.


Lol, then if humanity would have listened to you, we would still exist in the stone age.

Perhaps someday scientists will be able to map a complete description of every brain cell in real time while he formulates a scientific theory of his own mental operations,... assuming this obviously recursive procedure does give him a headache.

But in all seriousness, you indeed hit on the reason why in essence QM is weird to us, why there are multiple empirically indistinguishable interpretations for QM, why the measurement problem is yet unresolved,.... an epistemological source from a macroscopically evolved mind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Conscious is not consciousness. One is definable scientifically, the other is not.

How come you haven't learned that yet?
humanity would have listened to you, we would still exist in the stone age
WTF are you talking about?? Stone age people didn't use indefinable terms when making bows and knapping flint. Only when making effigies and burying their dead.

Arguably, begging gods for immortality has always retarded science which is the irrisistable urge behind wanting things like mind and consciousness to exist when they obviously do not.

They only give word-slingers like yourself an easy way to make a living. Kind of like card sharks.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Before you try to do science you have to first define 'consciousness' and 'mind' scientifically.


Well that is obviously wrong, as at present it is not understood how the phenomena of consciousness mind is explicable from a physical brain,.... and yet a lot of scientific knowledge has been obtained. Obviously the mind is not something over and above the physical brain,.... but it's operation is at present not understood especially wrt the first hand experience of consciousness.

The term "mind" is not akin to the term "soul",... the latter not denoting anything while the former simply denotes the operation of a physical thing that is in principle scientifically investigable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
The term "mind" is not akin to the term "soul",... the latter not denoting anything while the former simply denotes the operation of a physical thing that is in principle scientifically investigable
I see. So anything with a brain should be able to collapse a waveform. Any HUMAN should be able to collapse a waveform. Or are there humans without minds?

Your use of these terms is indefensible. Scientists do not use them except when musing in gardens or wowing the shills. Because they absolutely don't EXPLAIN anything. They don't FIT into any equation. They don't OPERATE any apparatus.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Well that is obviously wrong, as at present it is not understood how the phenomena of consciousness mind is explicable from a physical brain
You can explain how a brain processes info which tells it to direct limbs to operate knobs. You cant do that with minds. It's a worthless term. It implies that there is something indefinable about processing - something metaphysical - which is the source of the mysticism that real scientists find revolting.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
As I stated that understanding will come in time. I never stated that it is not possible for there to be scientific understanding of how the mind experiencing consciousness manifests from the physical brain, only that it is not entirely understood at present,.. while you are effectively the one denying that science will ever understand this as you are denying that the first hand experience of consciousness is even a phenomenon. All phenomena are scientifically investigable in principle.

I see. So anything with a brain should be able to collapse a waveform. Any HUMAN should be able to collapse a waveform.


In order to do QM or to question me, you should know what a QM wavefunction is; it's a mathematical function with a form similar to that in Fourier analysis, that evolves in an infinite mathematical space. It has no observable reality as Schrodinger originally intended. It is used for statistical weighting of possible outcomes.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
I never implied that the conscious mind physically reaches out as it were to do something to some imaged physical waveform, Otto. It has to do with a biological entity, the brain/ mind, that evolved at the macroscopic scale for processing and synthesizing experience at the macroscopic scale, now attempts to understand or at least obtain predictive knowledge of the quantum scale.

"There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking

...So there is an inescapable seam between Reality and Knowledge of reality,.... all scientific knowledge will have a mind dependent component.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
""There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason."

- So ask Steve if he meant to include newt brains as well. BTW he didn't use the word mind did he? Please provide a quote where he equates mind with brain.

And by conscious do you mean awake as opposed to knocked out? Or comatose? Because as we know these brains exhibit forms of conscious awareness even though they are not capable of operating waveform collapsing equipment nor of interpreting results.

What about schizophrenics? Do they have minds? They are not capable of attempting to understand or at least obtain predictive knowledge of the quantum scale. Neither are cretins or drunkards.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
Noumenon:
By implying that consciousness is not required to do a measurement, and that any quantum interaction is effectively a measurement, it is you and DaSchneib who are questioning basic science, and me who is correcing you.


Please show me a peer-reviewed scientific reference that explains that consciousness, not just say an electron colliding with a neutron, is necessary for the electron's superposition to collapse into a single quantum state.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Please show me a peer-reviewed scientific reference that explains that consciousness, not just say an electron colliding with a neutron, is necessary for the electron's superposition to collapse into a single quantum state.


The state reduction (wavefunction collapse) is an additional layer of interpretation, .... i.e. original Copenhagen interpretation. Interpretations are de facto a layer of conscious choice. IOW, and as stated above, the Schrodinger equation which is deterministic, and from which decoherence was derived, does NOT collapse the wavefunction.

If you wish to speak of "wavefunction collapse" then you should stop talking about decoherence,... or alternatively stop talking about "wavefunction collapse" and adopt the consistent-histories approach which again is another interpretation by a mind , which adds a layer of rules so that while still valid , renders "collapse" (or "state reduction", or "measurement" in original C.I. ) unnecessary.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
In other words, the resolution of the incompatibility between the deterministic Schrodinger equation, and the state-reduction, can only be resolved by introducing a conscious choice of interpretation. That it all.

It's not that "consciousness" reaches out in some mysterious physical manner to interact with another mysterious 'physical wavefunction' to dynamically cause it to "collapse".

[I didn't make clear above, but the 'consistent histories' interpretation makes use of decoherence, also called 'decoherence histories']
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
Noumenon
Please show me a peer-reviewed scientific reference that explains that consciousness, not just say an electron colliding with a neutron, is necessary for the electron's superposition to collapse into a single quantum state.


The state reduction (wavefunction collapse) is an additional layer of interpretation


So no peer-reviewed article to back up your assertions.

Please stop posting them in this forum. Nobody here accepts your novel elevation of consciousness into a necessary element of the collapse of quantum superposition into definite quantum states. There is no peer-reviewed research supporting your novel view. This is a science site.

If you are committed to discussing your novel view in this site's forum, spend your time getting it peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Then bring the citation back here. That's good enough for every other actual scientist, it's good enough for you.

Continuing the way you are is just masochism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
So no peer-reviewed article to back up your assertions.


I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Nobody here accepts your novel elevation of consciousness into a necessary element of the collapse of quantum superposition into definite quantum states.


Nothing I posted here is even in debate by anyone mildly informed of QM and its history, much less it being a "novel view". How embarrassing for you. I only accept mainstream physics, nor do I propose an unique interpretation that is not already adopted by many prominent physicists, as quoted above.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2017
Consciousness is one of those fuzzy words where you can move the goalpost endlessly - and it makes no sense to invoke it in a discussion that is even remotely supposed to be scientific.
It's just a "god of the gaps" argument in disguise.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Nobody here accepts your novel elevation of consciousness into a necessary element of the collapse of quantum superposition into definite quantum states.


Not only is that categorically not a "novel view" but in historical fact was the leading view of most physicists for much of the subjects history,..... in particular the Copenhagen Interpretation, .....Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, von Neumann,.... proposed that additional element (wavefunction collapse, also termed "measurement" in this specific context),..... and did so entirely on epistemic grounds !!

A more modern extension of the Copenhagen Interpretation makes use of decoherence,... as mentioned, called "consistent histories",... which renders collapse of the wavefunction superfluous, but still leaves an ensemble of alternative histories.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Consciousness is one of those fuzzy words where you can move the goalpost endlessly - and it makes no sense to invoke it in a discussion that is even remotely supposed to be scientific.
It's just a "god of the gaps" argument in disguise.


You didn't read the thread so your particular objection is not relevant to the discussion ..... a scientific minded person would attempt comprehension instead of knee-jerk react to a singular word.

-All empirically indistinguishable interpretations of QM require a conscious choice from the physicist.

-The notion of "collapse of the wavefunction" was postulated on epistemic grounds. It was Bohr's core argument and that of C.I.

- Decoherence as derived from the deterministic Schrodinger equation , does not result in collapse of the wavefunction to a single state.

These are facts.

EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2017
They have finally solved the classic problem, if a tree falls in a forest, will it make a sound if no one is there to hear it.


I disagree. The falling tree will generate lots of longitudinal vibrations of air molecules. But sound is something that happens in a brain that receives those vibrations after signal processing. Any properly equipped brain with an ear will hear the sound. But no brain, so sound. The key is the definition of sound. When we imagine the falling tree, we imagine the sound.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2017
I'm no expert in QM. A couple of college courses don't count. But it seems to me we are confusing the state of the cat, dead or alive, with our knowledge of the state of the cat. Its not in some mystical state of life-death, but one or the other depending on the emission, or not, of the particle.
I await the personal attacks and condemnations of ignorance and stupidity that seem to the norm here.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Consciousness is one of those fuzzy words where you can move the goalpost endlessly - and it makes no sense to invoke it in a discussion that is even remotely supposed to be scientific.


Not really. In the context of the historical development of QM a number of prominent physicists invoked consciousness or epistemology as a heuristic principle in helping them justify an appropriate methodology and interpretation,.... Bohr in particular, and also von Neumann and Wigner among others explicitly mentioned consciousness in respect to the incompatibility between the deterministic equations of QM and the apparent state reduction.

Also, it's on going Scientific research of how, though seemingly inexplicable, that "sound" or "pain" or "redness" could possibly manifest in experience from physical laws.

Also, it shouldn't require mentioning that, consciousness is the most immediate experience possible.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
But it seems to me we are confusing the state of the cat, dead or alive, with our knowledge of the state of the cat. Its not in some mystical state of life-death, but one or the other depending on the emission, or not, of the particle.


In classical physics that would be true, but in QM the possible alternatives can interfere with each other and so cause some possible alternatives to never be observed while causing still other possible alternatives to be even more likely to be observed than otherwise would be statistically expected . So we know that all possible alternatives must exist coextensively in some way (as described by the wavefunction), because of this interference effect.

[these interference effect is on account of the cross terms in the wavefunction or density matrix, which are what is lost during decoherence, which is being investigated experimentally with mesoscopic objects in superposition,... posted to annoy the dweebs]
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Bohr in particular, and also von Neumann and Wigner among others explicitly mentioned consciousness
-All mystics. You've seen the refs. Reputable scientists can still lapse into lyrical musings from time to time. Why would you take their weaknesses seriously?

Souls were invented back when authorities could explain very little about how the world around them worked. The soul cares very little about how material things work.

But then came scientists who began to explain everything. Priests were replaced by philos who in turn replaced souls with consciousness to imply that there was something just as ethereal that could understand material things.

And also possibly live forever in some form or fashion, sitting at the right hand of Goethe or Einstein etc in some big beautiful faculty lounge in the sky, spending eternity passing around words bigger and more esoteric than you could ever possibly hope to imagine.

Still woo woo amen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
Nou does bring up an interesting point (inadvertently as usual)... what if AI can't collapse the waveform? What if AI starts designing it's own double slit experiments and they don't work?

What if entanglement doesn't work for AI? What if quantum computers don't work once they begin to produce consciousness? Is this the real purpose for the human mind, the thing that will save us from extinction? haha

No I'm sure they will design a suitable workaround.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2017
I disagree. The falling tree will generate lots of longitudinal vibrations of air molecules.

You ever been in a forest? If there's no critter within hearing distance that has ears then that'd be one sterile forest.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
Noumenon:
So no peer-reviewed article to back up your assertions.


I'm not here to do your homework for you.


That's not my homework. I know that what you're asserting is wrong, and I posted a reliable source that backs me up. You cannot produce a peer-reviewed source backing up your disagreement.

Everyone who understand how disagreements are resolved knows that assertions must be backed up when challenged. It is the asserter's responsibility to do so. Without it your assertion is trivially rejected.

If you won't even bother to back up your assertions, you must not care about whether readers accept them. That is the troll at work.

Don't bother trolling the forum. Don't expect respect for your assertions when you do.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
That's not my homework. I know that what you're asserting is wrong


Well no, apparently you don't. For starters, your linked source is wrong. Decoherence categorically does not collapse the wavefunction. I provided quotes from Wiki, clearly a more informed site than your link. I also referenced 'consistent histories interpretation' which makes use of decoherence to effectively side step the issue of wavefunction collapse.

But apart from this, if you understood what the Schrodinger equation is and that it was used to derive decoherence, you would realize that there is no dynamical way that decoherence via the deterministic Schrodinger equation could possibly resolve to a particular state.

[there has been attempts to modify the standard Schrodinger equation to accomplish this but is non-standard]

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
-"Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment." - Wiki

It other words it gives a heuristic explanation for why classical behavior results when a quantum system interacts with the environment. There is no mathematical way for the Schrodinger equation (from which decoherence was derived) to collapse the wavefunction to a single state. This is why the old C.I. added the additional interpretational layer of "collapse" to begin with.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
- "Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive." – Wiki

And which state of the ensemble? Which basis? The deterministic Schrodinger equation, from which decoherence was mathematically derived, DOES NOT TELL US, as there is no mathematical way in which the Schrodinger equation 'collapses the wavefunction'.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
EmceeSquared,...

I'm not willing to invest much time transposing from text or searching out this topic for you given your insulting attitude and ignoring what I have posted, and because it is not actually hard to find sources that state my claim, that decoherence does not collapse the wavefunction nor resolve the measurement problem without additional interpretational layers,... it appears that you in fact don't want to find such sources.

I have already provided quotes from Wiki which tends to be rather decent in physics, but in addition, THIS LINK should suffice as well.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2017
"A dynamical collapse of the wave function would require nonlinear and non-unitary terms in the Schrödinger equation. Since nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation lead to observable deviations from conventional quantum theory, they should at present be disregarded for similar reasons as hidden variables." - Heinz-Dieter Zeh, the discoverer of decoherence !

In other words, an 'objective collapse' theory would require questionable modification of the Schrodinger equation,.... so says the man who discovered decoherence,..... hence decoherence does not collapse the wavefunction.

QED
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
What happens during decoherence is loss of phase coherence between the superposition of states, or another way of stating this in terms of a density matrix, is loss of off-diagonal or cross terms. These terms (or loss of phase) are what are responsible for quantum interference (and the non-intuitive behavior),.... so what results is classical behavior (intuitive; no interference effects; diagnolized matrix). The wavefunction itself doesn't collapse in this procedure, and what results is a mixture of states (albeit that one can 'legitimately' argue is equivalent 'for all intents and purposes' to a ensemble).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
"...a[n] ensemble."

-Nou, what are you doing here? Nobody here likes your poetry. Nobody is impressed. Nobody thinks it is helpful or relevant. Everybody makes fun of it. Everybody knows that real scientists laugh at it as well, and none of them ever uses it. Ever.

Why aren't you somewhere where this crap is appreciated? Is it easier to post here where you can pretend to be superior rather than on philo sites where everybody is pretending they're superior?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
You ever been in a forest? If there's no critter within hearing distance that has ears then that'd be one sterile forest
I dunno let's ask der Christus
https://youtu.be/deKCOI9UpUQ

-There's some poetry oder¿
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
a[n] ensemble."

-Nou, what are you doing here? Nobody here likes your poetry.


What are you doing here? Every time you attempt another trolling insult you again embarrass yourself by exposing your ignorance. The term 'ensemble' has meaning in QM,.... as in This Link.

And i'm well aware with the quality of posters at physorg, and that people who actually know something and willing to share, are resented and attacked. At this point it just amuses me. Why are you here?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
And i'm well aware with the quality of posters at physorg, and that people who actually know something and willing to share, are resented and attacked. At this point it just amuses me. Why are you here?
Im here to watch you play with yourself in public. And of course to do whatever I can to help expose formal philosophy babble and other religionist nonsense, in my own humble way.

I couldnt do that without you could I?

After all people dont have to speak russian to denounce stalinism now do they?

Again, why are you trying to discuss ensembles and other such esoterica with the people here? Why arent you over on physforums for instance, where they can shut you down in short order?

Oh... right.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
Who said I'm not at other forums? Did you just make that up? You tend to proclaim things and pretend they're true so you can hump your own strawman. I post at several forums.

why are you trying to discuss ensembles and other such esoterica with the people here?


I've been posting here for nearly a decade. There used to be quality posters here. Now mostly Jerry-Springer watchers and anti-intellectuals, like you.

I assumed that posters at a physics news site might actually be interested in physics. Unfortunately some are so intellectually insecure that they get insulted if you try to offer them improvements on their understanding,... and lash out defensively.

You think the term "ensembles" in the context of QM, is esoteric? You didn't even recognize that that word has specific meaning in QM,..... and yet somehow you think you're in the position to admonish me for some still unclear reason? What does this fact say about you?

Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
The irony is, that had you some knowledge of physics, you would at least know enough to also hide under your desk. You don't know enough to be humble, you're just a pointless troll, who thinks minds don't exist as phenomena.

Are you going to admit that you don't have a mind, Otto? Still waiting for you to do so.

You got me though, correcting about the spelling of "Hegel" and nailed me on that misuse of "a" instead of "an". Good job, and thank you, it's always good to learn. Was there anything about actual physics that you could help me with?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
I've been posting here for nearly a decade
I know. Hows that workin out for ya?
There used to be quality posters here
Yeah. And even they thought you were an idiot. Ethelred, skeptic heretic, the many avatars of zephyr, pink elephant, etcetc. And youre still here trying to impress us slugs.

Nobody likes you nou.
Who said I'm not at other forums? Did you just make that up?
Well they must be even less rewarding than this one.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2017
Christ, how old are you? Paraplegic? How many posters love you here Otto? LOL
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2017
@Noum, physics isn't philosophy, and philosophy isn't physics.

It doesn't make any difference how many posts you make.

Get over it.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
All empirically indistinguishable interpretations of quantum mechanics are de faco, philosophy of physics. I'll provide you with A Link that substantiates that fact.

However, most of my posts above were factually based about core QM.

It's just that we have a lot of insulting insecure childish people who post here and can't take being corrected about their own state of knowledge . Now, shouldn't you be under your desk?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
@Scnieb, no matter how many times it is stated to the contrary, decoherence does not 'collapse the wavefunction' or "superposition of parameters",.... nor is it appropriate to speak 'quantum interactions' independently of theoretical description.

So get over it.
Merrit
not rated yet Jun 21, 2017
Has anyone ever considered that maybe we are living in a simulation and the computer running us normally only uses the wave function to keep things running, likely to save processing, and that only when a measurement is taken does it have to actually calculate an actual value. I personally think us living in a simulation is kind of far fetched, but it would be very good explanation for this phenomenon .
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2017
All empirically indistinguishable interpretations of quantum mechanics are de faco, philosophy of physics
-And did yoy know that everything anybody ever said was philosophy? Its true.
I'll provide you with A Link that substantiates that fact
-Written No doubt by one of you guys. And substantiated with lots of indefinable terms and circular refs.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2017
All empirically indistinguishable interpretations of quantum mechanics are de faco, philosophy of physics.
We're not talking about interpretations. We're talking about the physics itself. And you're lying again, @Noum. Strawman, to be precise: talking about interpretations instead of physics.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
"....in some interpretations of quantum mechanics this is called "wavefunction collapse," - Da Scheib

... can't seem to keep you story straight can you. Decoherence and the deterministic mathematical evolution of the Schrodinger equation,..... the basic theoretical description of QM and thus the only rational means of speaking about it,..... does not collapse the wavefunction nor superposition of states. What is orders of magnitude worse than referencing philosophy of physics, (interpretations of QM),... is speaking metaphysically about quantum interactions and superpositions of parameters, without reference to experimental apparatus or theoretical description.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2017
@Noum, I think you missed the point. In fact I was talking about the underlying physics, as evidenced by the fact that I referred to multiple interpretations. It was unnecessary to my point to either enumerate those interpretations that use wavefunction collapse, or to deal with those that do not.

Apparently dealing with multiple interpretations to try to figure out what's going on "behind the curtain" is a bit beyond you. You're so caught up in philosophy that you forget that there's an underlying reality there that from your point of view is ineffable. Like most philosophers, you ignore the real terrain and concentrate on the map.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
We're not talking about interpretations. - DaSchneib


I referred to multiple interpretations - DaSchneib


Which is it? Interpretations of QM is philosophy of physics,... which if one is speaking about QM is difficult to avoid.

Your incessant narrative that only I speak of philosophy is just another route for you to escape and justify hiding under your desk. I'm the only one here who has referenced the proper theoretical description and meaning of decoherence with sources....

Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
Apparently dealing with multiple interpretations to try to figure out what's going on "behind the curtain" is a bit beyond you. You're so caught up in philosophy that you forget that there's an underlying reality there that from your point of view is ineffable.


The entire reason that multiple interpretations of QM even exist is precisely to "figure out what's going on 'behind the curtain'", and such interpretations are de faco philosophy of physics precisely on account that they are all empirically equivalent in terms of prediction .... and then you accuse me of speaking philosophy? You can't have it both ways. Clearly I have referenced core facts of QM here.

You guys were speaking about decoherence and collapse, and equating quantum interaction with measurement,.... despite that decoherence does not collapse wavefunction, nor solve the measurement problem.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 22, 2017
OK, @Noum, if you're not lying, show where I mentioned any particular interpretation.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
I quoted you verbatim. Were you lying? You're the first with rudeness and to call me a liar, yet you clearly contradict your own statements.

In fact part of your explanation to Emseesquard was not bad, but unfortunately straight away you insult and get defensive.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
Merrit:
computer running us normally only uses the wave function to keep things running, likely to save processing, and that only when a measurement is taken does it have to actually calculate an actual value.


Whether we live in a simulation working like that is an interesting debate. But the actual software we make is increasingly running in indeterminate states until necessarily defined. The latest Java 8 release now uses "streams" of collections passed through filter functions to a terminal resolution function. Only when the terminal function executes do the filters between it and the source collection get real values. The total function of the stream chain resolves to real values only when it is "observed" by the terminal function collecting the definite state of the stream contents.

This innovation makes computation scaleable not just efficiently but across multiple processor cores. And it also starts transitioning to quantum computing that's always like that.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) 18 hours ago
@Noum can't summon any evidence so it tries pretending two statements that are consistent aren't.

More @Noum philosophy AKA lying. You're as transparent as a child, @Noum. I'm not gonna litigate with you. That's because you don't have any physics to back up your BS AKA philosophy.
Da Schneib
not rated yet 18 hours ago
This innovation makes computation scaleable not just efficiently but across multiple processor cores. And it also starts transitioning to quantum computing that's always like that.
It's nice to see there are some actual programmers posting here. ;)

One of the reasons I study this stuff is I intend to be involved in implementing QC algorithms, and they are inherently logically different from traditional algorithms. One must understand QM in order to comprehend what strategies are available to accomplish tasks.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (1) 17 hours ago
Da Schneib:
It's nice to see there are some actual programmers posting here. ;)

One of the reasons I study this stuff is I intend to be involved in implementing QC algorithms, and they are inherently logically different from traditional algorithms.


Perl has had APIs to simulated QM operations for some time:
http://search.cpa...e=module

Once those are executing on real quantum HW, quantum computing will have really arrived.
Da Schneib
not rated yet 9 hours ago
Haha, QPerl. Most amusing.

any() and all() are fairly good representations of superposition, actually, though as you say they'll need to execute on real QC hardware to be properly implemented.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.