Slashdot Mirror
IBM And Mind Input Devices
An anonymous reader writes: "The basic idea is that an electronic device that produces random static noise may be affected by an observer if that static noise is based on the state of subatomic particles. This interaction of the user with the device can be measured and used as a form of input.
An interesting aspect of quantum physics is that when a subatomic particle is observed its state changes (its wave function collapses), and the new state that it assumes cannot be predicted. Various theories exist as to why a particle assumes whatever state it does when its wave function collapses. One theory is that the observer is somehow interacting with the particle, causing it to assume its new state. Researchers at Princeton's Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab have amassed statistically significant data that says that an observer affects the new state of the observed particles. In some way, our mind interacts with these particles, and this interaction can be measured. IBM wants to use this measurement to create a new type of input device that basically reads your mind, no wires attached.
IBMs Patent,
PEARs Website.
Incidentally, the inventors of this patent are a who's-who of the members of PEAR. Particularly Jahn and Dunne."
Learn the physics first, please. You don't exactly understand what they're talking about.
:)
Imagine an electron is in a mixed state, that is, it is not in a measurement eigenstate (i.e. it is not 'definite' what the result of the measurement will be). Now, *observe* the electron. I don't care how. Just make it so that macroscopically, the state of the apparatus is linked one-to-one with the state of the electron. Now, the question is, when you observe the apparatus, you don't see a superposition of eigenstates - you see one eigenstate. This is what is typically referred to as "the collapse of the wave function."
Your explanation would be "well, you scattered an electron or something off of it, and that changed the state and 'somehow' that pushed it into an eigenstate." Good explanation. Two points for trying.
Too bad you're wrong. Quantum mechanics knows how particles interact - they interact via the Schrodinger equation. You can do the basic QM for the apparatus/electron interaction. You do *not* get that the electron emerges in an eigenstate. (You couldn't. That would indicate a hidden variable theory, and Bell's inequality says that QM and a hidden variable theory don't work.) You get that the entire system is in a superposition of eigenstates.
This again leads you back to the previous problem. Somewhere, the wave function collapses. Guess what? We don't know where yet. We have no idea where yet. "We're working on it."
So, is there a mystery to it? Yes. Is there a *problem* here? No one's been able to find one - i.e., no one has been able to find anything other than philosophical problems with QM to my knowledge.
In conclusion, to sum up, in this case, yes, you're a total heathen. Sorry.
If you want a good reference to the philosophical issues regarding measurement and quantum mechanics, read J.S. Bell's Physics World, August 1990 article "Against 'measurement'" and the subsequent follow up articles in October, January 1991 and May 1991.
PEAR is hardly a con and seeing an article on the discovery channel does not qualify you to decide on experimenter bias as reporting is intrinsically biased and set to get attention, not provide facts.
2 36&threshold=-1&commentsort=3&mode=threa d&pid=43#98)
.05 is the commonly accepted value in statistics when dealing with scientific phenomena).
Read some of the research that PEAR has done and some of the better meta-analysis (which is a well documented, demonstrated, and researched technique) that has been published on this subject (see my other post for a book referance http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/23/0946
Further, I do not know the exact number which should have a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when you should fail to reject it), but we are definantly talking about more than 1 out of every 20 experiments having a p-value (probability of having a type-I error) of less than 5% (alpha =
-Hartwell
"It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not to our taste." - John Tyndall
-Hartwell
It's more than that.
Take double-slit diffraction experiment. The slits are of comperable width to the wavelength of a photon. Fire a beam of photons through the two holes. They produce an interference pattern.
Place a sensitive detector where the target screen is. Now you can detect individual photons, and you can detect where they hit.
Now take a source of photons which though somewhat random would be just as likely to spew a photon through one slit or the other. It's not that hard to produce, nor is it terribly critical for the experiment. The key point is that rate of photons coming out can be controlled.
Slow down the source and watch the pattern. lots of interference... turn it down more... still lots of interference.
What happens when only single photons are going through? One would expect a simple non-interfering diffraction pattern right? After all, singular photons are going through the slit, how could they possibly interfere with one another?
The pattern is that of interference. Peculiar isn't it? Which hole did the photon go through?
As soon as you attempt to observe the hole which the photon goes through... you have a non-interfering diffraction pattern. It has nothing to do with the fact that photons are bouncing off eachother or that the mechanism of detection is affecting the experiment. The pattern on your detection screen is for the particles which you did not interfere with.
This has been scrutinized very carefully by many very meticulous people. If you doubt the results, pick up a book by a reputable author or publisher and read about it. There are practial applications of these results, and the same properties were found for electrons. There is more evidence that the results are not propreties specific to photons or electrons, though I have not read it personally and cannot comment on it.
On a similar note, it is implied by quantum physics, that quantum particles appear to be aware of eachother, and that this action at a distance has no time delay, such as the limit of the speed of light. I wonder if SETI is listining to the wrong thing. Imagine this technology coupled with the action at a distance principle, so that you could choose coupled quantum particles to communicate over vast distances with no time delay. Couple these technologies with virtual reality, and it could be possible for communities, seperated by vast distances of space, to communicate and interact in real time. Wouldn't it be surprising to find a universal (literally) quantum network that was in use, and that we have been looking in the wrong place all this time. I would imagine that any species entry in to the universal forum would be predicated by their discovery of the technologies, and their ability to apply them to interact with this universal network. Instead of physically traveling in a space ship to distant worlds, we instead project our consciousness over vast distances with the help of virtual reality and quantum communication. Perhaps ET isn't going to show up in a galactic cruiser, but instead is patiently waiting for us to pick up the damn quantum telephone. We just haven't heard it ring yet.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
[Brain overload. Core dumped.]
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
I saw a dicovery channel magazine segment on these guys, and wasn't impressed.
I believe their results are biased.
Its based on a pretty basic statistical phenomenon that unfortunately is not documented very much in research.
If you generate 20 hypotheses (hypothesising structure) on random phenomenon, odds are 1 of them will falsely show structure within the common 19/20 (95%) confidence intervals.
when you combine this with the selective labelling of people as talented and untalented (in ESP), and throwing out of data when the subjects feel tired, or are otherwise displeased with the results, you get the self fullfilling results used to obtain increased funding from the stupid.