PDA

View Full Version : Proof That The Univese Is Observer is Unique Within the Psiwave Collapse



Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-06, 04:15 PM
I'll set up a thought experiment -- I will call; The Information Wave Function

Scenario

A scientist called Jim walks into the lab, and finds a photon moving towards Younges Double Slit Experiment. He decides to observe the photon through a superlensed photograph, and catches it a in a single frame, but nevethless it is enough to resolve and collapse the WF.

Implication of Jims Observation

He has no physical connection with the photon. The only connection between him and the atom, is a direct measurement with nothing in between*


*) I am not working independantly here. Using the thoughts of Saquist {recently} suggested a type of Aether -- whether that be an energy exhange which i calculated through the variables:

Tr -> (E- aw/c^2)

Which is the transfer of energy is direction proportional to angular velocity over the speed of light to the power of 2. This is only possible in a time of:

r<v<t/c

Only through angular momentum, energy is then converted with twice the magnitude, according to relativity:

E/c^2

Even Gluon energy in the process in excited by the coupling of quarks within the process, simply because the energy being transferred is enough to couple with a psuedoparticle, or counterparting a massivce scalar to produce quarks, spontaneously released from the vacuum due to the energy and wavelength of that energy h/mc being raised and increased by E/c^2.

The quarks if the join, which they usually do, unless some passing nuetrino's knocks it off by even a mere 0.000011% --- very small gravitational effect** -- but when they join, the actually contribute more energy than what they where composed of, due to relativity theory and quantum predictions- -Coupled by math of course.

**This depends if the nuetron has a mass...

Implications of Protino ----------------------------------------------

A protino will move along the curved paths of spacetime, until it reaches some very negligable, but still pervasive gravitational effects; Basically a wall in spacetime, like a car moving through the mist.

The mist will cover the car/protino, and even the particle will effect it's surroundings, by exchanging energy (M=E/c^2) through angular momentum. It will effect it's surroundings into a settled quantum state, decohering, or naturally collapsing the wave function.

----------------------------------------------------------

Summery:

Matter moving through a gas, or simply decohere after so long will collapse the wave function. This is not only a [physical effect] But Also A [Localised Effect]

An Observer collapses the wave function upon measurement. [This is not a physical effect] For there is a distance between the eye and the observed system, nor a [localised Effect], because there is also a distance involved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>

The observer is unique in collapsing the wave function, because how can we collapse something whe such a distance seperates us in free space, unless an extra field was responsible One has already been proposed.

(I know this might seem very obtuse, but please, ask any questions...) :)

p.s. I have more math and examples. But the above should be suffice, but i am willing to present the more complex math if you want. In order that you might understand this essay more, i will mark certain paragraphs, and letter them individuallly, and present excerpts of that content in the thread below. :D

Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-06, 05:33 PM
Please don't be intimidated by the math. But more importantly, the math may be quite easy for many round here... but the biggest problem might be, after reading over it again, i may have worded this rather bleak. If i have, please don't hesitate to give me the third-degree :)

Neverfly
2008-Mar-06, 11:07 PM
Please don't be intimidated by the math. But more importantly, the math may be quite easy for many round here... but the biggest problem might be, after reading over it again, i may have worded this rather bleak. If i have, please don't hesitate to give me the third-degree :)

It isn't the math that caused me any problems, it was your set biased assumptions at the outset.

Jim
2008-Mar-06, 11:14 PM
Occams Ghost, this seems to be an extension of your ATM thread "Essay 6."

Please explain to me why this thread belongs here instead of there.

grant hutchison
2008-Mar-06, 11:30 PM
Jim photographs a photon. After the camera has interacted with the photon's wavefunction, the photon is found to have a definite location: the camera.
This says little about Jim's role in quantum mechanics, and much about the camera's.

The gluons, quarks, protinos and assorted mathematical fragments seem to have no relevance.

Grant Hutchison

LucasVB
2008-Mar-07, 12:16 AM
Yet another misunderstanding of QM due to the term "observer", I guess. People take it too personally.

Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-07, 12:27 PM
Jim

It should be here, because i am showing an inconsistency between the process of decoherence: Which is a physical effect, to the process of an observation in regards to the collapse of the wave function.

I am showing proof that an atomic observer is totally different and not unique at all, and is not enough proof to ''throw'' away the human observer.

Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-07, 12:28 PM
By the way... i never said a camara. I was talking about a super-lensed telescope... not an impossible thing to make.

grant hutchison
2008-Mar-07, 01:01 PM
By the way... i never said a camara. I was talking about a super-lensed telescope... not an impossible thing to make.Jim photographs a photon using a "superlensed telescope". After the "superlensed telescope" has interacted with the photon's wavefunction, the photon is found to have a definite location: the "superlensed telescope".
This says little about Jim's role in quantum mechanics, and much about the telescope's.

Grant Hutchison

CodeSlinger
2008-Mar-07, 03:47 PM
Jim

It should be here, because i am showing an inconsistency between the process of decoherence: Which is a physical effect, to the process of an observation in regards to the collapse of the wave function.

I am showing proof that an atomic observer is totally different and not unique at all, and is not enough proof to ''throw'' away the human observer.

In other words, you're advocating the ATM position that consciousness somehow has a unique role w.r.t. the act of observation in quantum mechanics.

Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-07, 03:57 PM
No.

Occams Ghost
2008-Mar-07, 04:00 PM
By the way... i mean a naked eye observing the wave through a powerful glass lense. As i said it isn't impossible to make.

CodeSlinger
2008-Mar-07, 04:15 PM
If you're not saying that consciousness has a unique role, then what exactly did you mean when you said this?


I am showing proof that an atomic observer is totally different and not unique at all, and is not enough proof to ''throw'' away the human observer.

Ken G
2008-Mar-07, 04:32 PM
It sounds like you think the issue is whether or not an eye can detect a single quantum of light, but what Grant is saying is that even if it does, that quantum is still in the eye at the time. So you are talking about the physiology of the eye at the time of detection. Consciousness only comes in if you want to ask further questions, like how is the detection interpreted by the brain.

grant hutchison
2008-Mar-07, 04:50 PM
By the way... i mean a naked eye observing the wave through a powerful glass lense. As i said it isn't impossible to make.But what you wrote was:

He decides to observe the photon through a superlensed photograph, and catches it a in a single frameSo your original story looks very like a mechanical photon-detecting device of some kind (such as a camera).

If you're talking about observing a single photon, then a powerful glass lens isn't going to make it any brighter. And, for the purposes of consciousness, you have simply replaced one macroscopic photon detector with another: a retina instead of a camera. Further, we know that a single photon, absorbed by retinal cells, is extremely unlikely to produce an effect on consciousness. So the photon is absorbed (unable to participate in an interference pattern) but unobserved (not known to consciousness).

Grant Hutchison

Abelian Grape
2008-Mar-07, 04:58 PM
By the way... i mean a naked eye observing the wave through a powerful glass lense. As i said it isn't impossible to make.
I don't understand what you are doing here. I see two ways of interpreting what you wrote. Perhaps you can tell us which, if either, is what you meant:

A) the photon is observed by means of other photons interacting with it that then somehow (1) head off in exactly the same direction, and (2) get through your super telescope to the eye (which I would hardly describe as a "naked eye" in this case)? Or

B) the photon to be observed is itself headed directly into the observer's eye?

Note first that the only way any photon can be "observed" by a human by eye, that is to say registered by the human optical/neural system, is if it is one of several that arrive at the same place within a short period of time (<~0.1 s). Putting a telescope in front doesn't increase the number of photons, it just concentrates the ones that are there into a smaller area.

Option A seems an improbable circumstance, untess you figure, say, on having the observed photon entering a laser aimed at the eye -- in which case it is the emitted photons that are detected, not the original.

For option B, as noted a single photon doesn't work, because it can't be "observed".

grant hutchison
2008-Mar-07, 05:09 PM
By the way (and I address this question to everyone, although it arises from the text of Occams Ghost's first post): What, if anything, is a "protino"?

It looks like it should be a supersymmetric partner of some kind, but it seems to violate the naming convention, in which boson partners take "-ino" (eg, photino) and fermion partners take "s-" (eg, sproton).

Grant Hutchison

Neverfly
2008-Mar-07, 05:11 PM
By the way (and I address this question to everyone, although it arises from the text of Occams Ghost's first post): What, if anything, is a "protino"?

It looks like it should be a supersymmetric partner of some kind, but it seems to violate the naming convention, in which boson partners take "-ino" (eg, photino) and fermion partners take "s-" (eg, sproton).

Grant Hutchison

It is the particle that comprises the mass and volume of most shakes drunk by weight lifters and trainers.

It can also be found in meats and insects contain a good portion of them as well.

Abelian Grape
2008-Mar-07, 05:37 PM
By the way (and I address this question to everyone, although it arises from the text of Occams Ghost's first post): What, if anything, is a "protino"?

It looks like it should be a supersymmetric partner of some kind, but it seems to violate the naming convention, in which boson partners take "-ino" (eg, photino) and fermion partners take "s-" (eg, sproton).

Grant Hutchison

Since a proton is not an elementary particle, it doesn't have a supersymmetric partner as such. Protons, neutrons and like are made of quarks, whose partners are squarks -- if you accept supersymmetry. The "protino" is clearly another OG invention.

Jim
2008-Mar-07, 06:03 PM
Jim

It should be here, because i am showing an inconsistency between the process of decoherence: Which is a physical effect, to the process of an observation in regards to the collapse of the wave function.

I am showing proof that an atomic observer is totally different and not unique at all, and is not enough proof to ''throw'' away the human observer.

This does not convince me.

One more time, how is this different from the claims made in Essay 6?

Also (and I didn't catch this before), what is a "protino?" If you cannot cite a Mainstream source for or explanation of its existence, that would seem to be ATM.

grant hutchison
2008-Mar-07, 07:02 PM
Since a proton is not an elementary particle, it doesn't have a supersymmetric partner as such. Protons, neutrons and like are made of quarks, whose partners are squarks -- if you accept supersymmetry.Thanks. I was wondering if there was perhaps some analogous theoretical assembly of squarks to make sprotons and sneutrons.

Grant Hutchison

Abelian Grape
2008-Mar-07, 07:37 PM
Thanks. I was wondering if there was perhaps some analogous theoretical assembly of squarks to make sprotons and sneutrons.

Grant Hutchison
Sure, why not?? ;) What else would we call a proton partner made up of squarks? Whatever, it would not be a protino.

Abelian Grape
2008-Mar-07, 07:45 PM
....
**This depends if the nuetron has a mass...

From context, I assume you meant neutrino, not neutron. The neutron most definitely has mass. Unless a "nuetron" is another imaginary particle like a protino.

pzkpfw
2008-Mar-07, 08:32 PM
Part 1:


He decides to observe the photon through a superlensed photograph, and catches it a in a single frame, ...

a. Light of a given colour hits a rock in the desert where there is no one to see it1. The colour of the light has effects such as heating the rock by a certain amount.

b. Light of a given colour hits the film (or CCD) in a camera. The colour of the light is recorded by the chemicals in the film (or by the effects on the CCD as recorded as bits in silicon memory). That colour can be re-produced by mechanical and electronic means.

c. Light of a given colour hits the retina of a human observer. The different chemicals in the retina allow the colour to be distinguished by the brain, and the human observer "consciously thinks" - 'what a horrible colour'.

Q: In what way has the consciousness (whatever that is) of the human (observer c.) affected the reality of the light, differently to the rock (observer a.) or the film (observer b.) in the camera?

1 See the ATM thread you ran away from.

Part 2


An Observer collapses the wave function upon measurement. [This is not a physical effect] For there is a distance between the eye and the observed system, nor a [localised Effect], because there is also a distance involved.

You seem to be going around in circles.

Q: Can you define "observer" as used in that sentence, and why (if as I guess, you mean "conscious observer") your scientist would have a different effect than, say, a rock?

Q: Is the scientist having a "physical effect" on the photon that hit his retina, or on the distant system that emitted the photon? Is his "conscious processing" of that image having a different effect than the "non conscious" effect of the rock or the film?

Note: I'm not questioning quantum entanglement (I think that's what you are invoking, I may be wrong) but just your continuing distinction between conscious and non-conscious observer.

Epilogue:

In your ATM thread you stopped answering questions and said you'd answer them in your "new" post.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/70643-essay-no-6-anthropic-way-5.html#post1190768

...but here you are simply making the same statements again. Where is the answer?

captain swoop
2008-Mar-07, 09:02 PM
Another thread? how about concentrating on one of the others you already have open?

fotobits
2008-Mar-08, 03:00 AM
Summery:

Matter moving through a gas, or simply decohere after so long will collapse the wave function. This is not only a [physical effect] But Also A [Localised Effect]

Huh? What in this universe does "decohere" mean? In English, please.

Also, your poor spelling and random capitalization indicates sloppy thinking. Your posts are obtuse, at best.

Neverfly
2008-Mar-08, 03:36 AM
Huh? What in this universe does "decohere" mean? In English, please.

How about in Wikipedia?;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

The decohered elements of the system no longer exhibit quantum interference between ... Any elements that decohere from each other via environmental(snip)
<chuckle>
The Firefox Spellcheck refuses to recognize "decohere" as a word...

Also, your poor spelling and random capitalization indicates sloppy thinking. Your posts are obtuse, at best.

Now, fotobits, I'm not attacking you here and I understand exactly where you are coming from but...

Astromark seems to have reinvented English spelling, for example. I actually enjoy his posts for that reason just because deciphering what on Earth he is saying is rather amusing:D Yet AstroMark shows a keen intellect and oftentimes makes a great deal of sense too.
Sometimes he doesn't but hey- I rarely do myself...

I capitalize letters and words for emphasis a lot too. Old habit. Rather than using italics or bold... just cap something.
I'm learning not to do that but ummm... It's still a habit I slip into.

I'm just being fair here. Let's keep the merit of Occams Ghosts claims based on the science. Even if he spells badly or has typing habits many people don't agree with, they are irrelevant to the science.

The science which he is abusing I completely disagree with by the way...

TheHalcyonYear
2008-Mar-08, 04:56 AM
Jim


I am showing proof that an atomic observer is totally different and not unique at all, and is not enough proof to ''throw'' away the human observer.

It seems to me that until you actually do the experiment, it can't really be considered proof of anything.

Jim
2008-Mar-08, 04:21 PM
Also, your poor spelling and random capitalization indicates sloppy thinking. Your posts are obtuse, at best.

This comes very close to being an ad hominem. Please direct your comments and criticisms to the subject being presented. If you find the method or mechanics of the presentation confusing, ask for clarification. Do not attack the presenter.

Just anecdotally, many languages capitalize nouns. Many people may capitalize them for emphasis (not just Neverfly). And Thomas Jefferson (no intellectual slouch) said something to the effect of "It's a poor mind than can think of only one way to spell a word." (He was notorious for his misspellings.)

Jim
2008-Mar-09, 05:17 PM
This does not convince me.

One more time, how is this different from the claims made in Essay 6?

Also (and I didn't catch this before), what is a "protino?" If you cannot cite a Mainstream source for or explanation of its existence, that would seem to be ATM.

It's been 48 hours with no response, yet Occams Ghost has found the time to open two new threads and participate in a third. All this would seem to indicate a lack of interest in continuing this thread.

Thread closed.