Slashdot Mirror


Collapse of Quantum Wavefunction Captured In Slow Motion

ananyo writes "It is the most fundamental, and yet also the strangest postulate of the theory of quantum mechanics: the idea that a quantum system will catastrophically collapse from a blend of several possible quantum states to just one the moment it is measured by an experimentalist. Researchers have now been able to capture that collapse through the use of weak measurements — indirect probes of quantum systems that tweak a wavefunction slightly while providing partial information about its state, avoiding a sudden collapse. Atomic and solid-state physicist Kater Murch of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues performed a series of weak measurements on a superconducting circuit that was in a superposition — a combination of two quantum states. They did this by monitoring microwaves that had passed through a box containing the circuit, based on the fact that the circuit's electrical oscillations alter the state of the microwaves as they pass through the box. Over a couple of microseconds, those weak measurements captured snapshots of the state of the circuit as it gradually changed from a superposition to just one of the states within that superposition — as if charting the collapse of a quantum wavefunction in slow motion."

242 comments

  1. No video in the link by Pikoro · · Score: 4, Informative

    So don't bother unless you want to read a dry paper.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect a video of, exactly?

    2. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't bother unless you want to read a dry paper.

      Damn the lazy scientists, couldn't even be bothered to film an experiment with subatomic particles, come on, what is this, 1980? Everybody's got an iPhone these days!

    3. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everyone knows that when you try to capture a quantum state on video, all you end up with is cats. How else do you explain all the cat videos on Youtube?

    4. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they act like their are pictures or something to see..
      To quote TFA:

      Slow-motion movie

      Then no video...

    5. Re:No video in the link by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Video? When I read "captured" I thought they meant "in captivity", like they had the Quantum Critter in a box with the cat or a microscopic cage or something like that.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:No video in the link by r1348 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you really expect to see a video of a quantum wavefunction?

    7. Re:No video in the link by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Sure there was video in the link! Oh, wait... you must have gotten the "other" version. Well, quantum stuff can suck sometimes but hey, at least you're not a cat!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did.

      http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

    9. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did and I didn't.

    10. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ±5 Funny

    11. Re:No video in the link by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everybody's got an iPhone these days!

      Great. Filmed in portrait.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re:No video in the link by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 1

      And way not a video? Some oscilloscope at least.
      Where photo is, video ain't far. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/23/quantum-microscope-peers-into-the-hydrogen-atom

    13. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL (probably)

    14. Re:No video in the link by Lumpy · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE

      They have a video camera that takes frames faster than light can travel, so they have the technology. Problem is it requires the subject to be ungodly bright.

      So unless the collapse is holy shit bright, it cant be imaged.

      But they could do an animation that explains it to us muggles that dont want to read through a paper written by people that are intentionally writing for getting tenure or funding.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:No video in the link by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You win TWO internets!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:No video in the link by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      That can't be true; if it were, more of them would be dead.

    17. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is probably also important that the measurements were of microwaves... from a single point, so there is no direct 2D measurements involved that would make a camera or any vague sense of a camera relevant. The actual article has the figures available for free, even if the article itself is pay-walled. Of note, it is in the letters section of Nature, meaning they were trying to get the results out quickly and tersely, so it wouldn't be surprising they don't have any general public oriented animation, even if someone is planning to do such PR work down the line.

    19. Re:No video in the link by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      What did you expect a video of, exactly?

      Well, I was expecting a slow motion video of the collapse of a quantum wavefunction, myself.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as soon as I try to use one, the other one disappears?

    21. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      video - or it didn't happen!

    22. Re:No video in the link by frinsore · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE

      They have a video camera that takes frames faster than light can travel, so they have the technology. Problem is it requires the subject to be ungodly bright.

      No. No they don't. They have a "camera" with a very fast shutter speed. Then they take millions of pictures of different laser pulses and stitch them together to create an animation that mimics a single laser pulse.

      I know that the comments on youtube are pretty poor and that most people rarely read articles but this is a really cool video and if you can't be bothered to understand what you're looking at then I feel sorry for you.

    23. Re:No video in the link by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, "pictures or GTFO"?
      '
      I'm with that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but "capture in slow motion" as stated in the summary title normally means in video. So they shouldn't have said that because that isn't what they did. What they did is measured a progression of quantum superposition states.

    25. Re:No video in the link by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Uh.. this is slashdot, you DO NOT observe the article anyway, or strange things may occur.

      Speaking of strange, why do we keep calling stuff like this "strange"? at a microscopic level matter behave differently, ok. Had we mostly experience of quantum states, we would classify classical mechanic strange.
      It is what it is. Model it with known concepts if you can, but don't try to fit everything in existing categories.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    26. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "....at least you're not a cat!"

      Well, I'm uncertain about that. I could be a fuzzy pink elephant at any given point in time, but given how unlikely that is, it will be for a nearly infinitely small period of time.

      Or something like that. Quantum hurts my brain.

    27. Re:No video in the link by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Speaking of strange, why do we keep calling stuff like this "strange"?

      Because it is strange. I am an engineer, not a physicist, but I took plenty of physics courses in college, and have kept up on progress in QM. This experiment is not the result that I would have expected. I had always understood that it is either one state or the other, all or none, and the collapse was instantaneous with any measurement. To now learn that none of that is true, that the collapse can be "partial", and that intermediate measurements can be made, is very strange indeed. Fascinating stuff.

      As both computation and memory technology move into the quantum domain, this is likely to have real, practical implications. For instance, if quantum states take time to collapse, that may put limits on the speed of quantum hardware.

    28. Re:No video in the link by fatphil · · Score: 1

      GTFO?

      Grand Theory Fields
                  ^--------  Of

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    29. Re:No video in the link by fatphil · · Score: 1

      So is the paper like a flip book?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    30. Re:No video in the link by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If you observe the paper, you change it?

      And thus wikipedia and blogs were invented.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    31. Re:No video in the link by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Quantum hurts my brain.

      Only because you haven't taken the appropriate precautions. Surgeons wear gloves. Soldiers wear body armor. And quantum scientists... well here... puff puff pass, then your brain won't hurt so much with quantum...dude

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    32. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dry???

      Turn in your nerd card. TL;DR==aliterate (not to be confused with illiterate)

    33. Re:No video in the link by fisted · · Score: 2

      They have a video camera that takes frames faster than light can travel

      Ohh, so it takes frames with over 300,000,000 m/s?

    34. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For movies, I hear they use 240,000,000 m/s.

    35. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collapse of Building 1 Captured In Slow Motion.
      Collapse of Beach Captured In Slow Motion.
      Collapse of Old Man Captured In Slow Motion.
      Collapse of Quantum Wavefunction Captured In Slow Motion.

      Yeah why not? I looked on wikipedia and they have some examples (little GIFs) of wave functions on their page.

      A wave function or wavefunction (also more appropriately named as statefunction) in quantum mechanics describes the quantum state of a particle and how it behaves. Why couldn't there be a video. Look at wikipedia, they have GIFs! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function)

    36. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, FFS, the video isn't of the actual waveform collapsing, that would be impossible. The video would be of the lasers. You can't photograph subatomic particles, they can barely image atoms.

    37. Re:No video in the link by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Which is why I mentioned photons and brightness. And YES you can have a microwave energy "camera" https://www.google.com/search?q=microwave+camera

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    38. Re:No video in the link by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Most americans cant be bothered to understand anything so I'm at the top of my peers here in the states.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    39. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they're not?

    40. Re:No video in the link by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They have a video camera that takes frames faster than light can travel

      That's like trying to compare the speed of a car in miles per hour with the speed of a computer in GHz. In other words, meaningless.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    41. Re:No video in the link by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      It's not really even just a fast shutter, as I understand it. It's like a zillion cameras all with their own shutters being asked to capture a frame one trillionth of a second after the previous one captures a frame. It's like quantum bullet-time.

      We can't really open and close a shutter that fast, but we can get electronics to trigger at extremely precise times.

      (I could be mistaken; I haven't read the article in a while and I didn't reference it before writing this comment because hey: slashdot. :D)

    42. Re:No video in the link by aled · · Score: 1

      No, no, It's a bug in Intel codecs. They are going to fix it for their next gen CPUs.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    43. Re:No video in the link by aled · · Score: 2

      Let me check... oh no...

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    44. Re:No video in the link by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Funny

      You fool! You weren't supposed to look!

    45. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that wouldn't do anything other than capture a single point, because the data was of microwaves with zero spatial dimensions of information, only variation over time. Saying thermal cameras exist isn't relevant to an experiment that measures and only cares about temperature at a single point.

    46. Re:No video in the link by Prune · · Score: 1

      While a video would satisfy an instinctual curiosity of "what it looks like", it would, in this case, provide essentially no insight. Since when was the job of science entertainment--or even the job of Slashdot, for that matter? Calling it "dry" is not a valid criticism for a scientific subject.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    47. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      african or european?

    48. Re:No video in the link by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A slow motion video is too fast for the human eye to see.

    49. Re:No video in the link by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      Watch the TED video if you haven't already. It's good.
      Interesting title they gave the page, even though what frinsore said is correct.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html

    50. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And quantum scientists... well here... read this math textbook, then your brain won't hurt so much with quantum...dude

      FTFY

    51. Re:No video in the link by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      They have a video camera that takes frames faster than light can travel

      lolwut?

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    52. Re:No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter how bright or what part of the spectrum the light was in. Even if it was extremely bright and in the visible, a camera would be useless. It would be like looking at the end of a single mode fibre, where with proper gain settings, you would have one useful pixel, and a bunch of useless or redundant pixels.

    53. Re:No video in the link by aled · · Score: 1

      It's funny in some universe and not funny in another.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    54. Re:No video in the link by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      oh no...

      What, no drugs?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    55. Re: No video in the link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for tht experiment but maybe next time the clever scientist will use multiple points (pixels) of microwave energy. This would enable them to produce an image. Unless I totally mistake how a camera operates?! ;-)

      One of the lab monkeys will figure tht out and we will get an image of a bubble (parcial sphere until they make really big cameras) collapsing in on itself.

      It will get more interesting when they see tht waves are not really waves but vibrating, 3D analog fields (much like a ball with a jelly filling tht is vibrating at such a torrific rate as to feel solid- like touching a vibrating centrifuge). But tht may take them a while, or perhaps they already see tht?!

  2. That's no Quantum Wavefunction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT'S A SPACESHIP!

    1. Re: That's no Quantum Wavefunction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiding behind a comet.

  3. catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Catastrophically collapse", really? What's catastrophic about it?

    1. Re:catastrophically collapse by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

      My thought exactly. Someone saw the word 'collapse' and thought, "Not dramatic enough."

      OH MY GOD THAT WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSED! THERE GOES ANOTHER ONE!

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    2. Re:catastrophically collapse by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Catastrophically collapse", really? What's catastrophic about it?

      Generally speaking, when it collapses, it involves destroying a nearly infinite number of possibilities in an absolutely irreversible way. The collapse is complete.

      Its pretty much the definition of catastrophic.

      That said, its a bit of hyperbole that probably wasn't needed. But its not inaccurate.

    3. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How can anything be "nearly infinite"?

    4. Re:catastrophically collapse by chill · · Score: 2

      Not familiar with the mathematical concept of "infinity minus 1" are you?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:catastrophically collapse by tuo42 · · Score: 1
    6. Re:catastrophically collapse by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Every time you wave your arm in the air you destroy an infinite number of universes.

      In a lot of them you're currently having sex with Miley Cyrus.

      (Whether or not that's "catastrophic" is up to you...)

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not familiar with the mathematical concept of "infinity minus 1" are you?

      Not answering the question, are you?

    8. Re:catastrophically collapse by pahles · · Score: 1

      It could wreck you...

      --
      Sig?
    9. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can anything be "nearly infinite"?

      It can be bijectively mapped to a proper subset of itself, except for one element ;)

    10. Re:catastrophically collapse by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      It's a hyperbole to drum up some clicks. Quantum waveform collapse is the new mystical edge of science where a lot of crazies have their hopes and dreams pinned. It also makes for some good sci-fi if you can suspend disbelief.

      But this phrase right here:

      collapse from a blend of several possible quantum states to just one the moment it is measured by an experimentalist

      This is problematic and it keeps drawing in the crazies like flies. People read that and they think that the universe has a specific reaction to people watching it. That things happen differently if it's observed or not observed. By people. With souls.

      But no, that's wrong. And that quote is wrong. That's simply not how it works. It's close, but it's not entirely true. The waveform collapses when it has ANY measurable impact. IE, when it interacts with anything, then it collapses. It's not a special trait that only "experimentalists" possess. It's not a trait that humans posses. It's a trait that everything in the universe possesses.

      Yes, yes, I know how much you want to be special. But in this case, you're not. Now get over it and start doing good scientific journalism rather than this misleading tripe.

    11. Re:catastrophically collapse by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply that (as per 6th grade teacher) infinity isnt a number and you cant subtract real numbers from it...

      But wikipedia is telling me that my childhood was a lie. Thanks, internet!

    12. Re: catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Infinity minus 1" doesn't exist, because infinity is not a number. You can't have "an infinite number"; the terms are contradictory. So neither can you have a "nearly infinite number". Any number is, by definition, finite. Even if you take a really big number and multiply it by another really big number, the result is still, by definition, finite.

    13. Re:catastrophically collapse by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Ask an RIAA lawyer.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re: catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any number is, by definition, finite

      Only if you are working with the reals or some boring subset there of. There are plenty of extensions to real numbers that include non-finite numbers.

      So neither can you have a "nearly infinite number".

      Unless you are talking about a variation of the mathematically defined concept of "almost everywhere", where you talk about an uncountable set having some countable number of exceptions, for example.

    15. Re:catastrophically collapse by Prune · · Score: 1

      "nearly infinite" is not a reasonable term. It's either finite, or infinite, where the latter can be further classified into countable and uncountable infinities, or higher transfinites in the Cantor hierarchy. The main question is: are the possibilities finite or infinite? If they were infinite, you could use this to encode infinite amount of information in the physical system (by setting up a superposition state where the probability density is specified with arbitrary precision), which would break the Bekenstein bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    16. Re:catastrophically collapse by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      Except, it can't be that simple.

      In an atom, you can only describe the electrons in a consistent way if you describe them as being standing Schrodinger waves vibrating around the nucleus. But they are vibrating around the nucleus because they are confined by the electric charge of the nucleus and electrons. That is an interaction, an electrical one between different fermions. Most material interactions are electrical.

      So, an atom ought to collapse immediately as the electrons' wave functions immediately collapse and the electrons spiral into the nucleus.

      Now you could say that the electrons are not interacting all the time with nucleus, but are confined by it in some way that doesn't include constant interaction. But then the same problem would occur when atoms interact with other atoms, the new electrical interaction with the other atom would cause the electrons' WF to collapse and molecules wouldn't form.

      So, if matter is to exist in any real macroscopic way it can't be that ALL interactions cause a waveform collapse.

      But if macroscopic interactions (measurements) do cause a collapse, then there must be some demarcation between macro and micro scopic. But what would this be, in a scientifically and ontologically meaningful way?

      Our definitions are completely arbitrary. We say subatomic, but we have observed quantum behaviour in things as big as a virus. And a virus interacts macroscopically.

      Hence, the well known 'measurement problem'.

    17. Re:catastrophically collapse by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, when it collapses, it involves destroying a nearly infinite number of possibilities in an absolutely irreversible way.

      That sounds a whole lot like the concept of time. By that definition, every instant is a catastrophic collapse.

    18. Re:catastrophically collapse by tgd · · Score: 1

      "nearly infinite" is not a reasonable term. It's either finite, or infinite, where the latter can be further classified into countable and uncountable infinities, or higher transfinites in the Cantor hierarchy. The main question is: are the possibilities finite or infinite? If they were infinite, you could use this to encode infinite amount of information in the physical system (by setting up a superposition state where the probability density is specified with arbitrary precision), which would break the Bekenstein bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

      Well that was just couching the statement because they're suggesting the original system had just two states. Not sure I buy that, but I backed down from infinite.

      In either case, its still catastrophic.

    19. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, an atom ought to collapse immediately as the electrons' wave functions immediately collapse and the electrons spiral into the nucleus.

      This doesn't make any sense as your write, and it sounds like you are equivocating the word "collapse." You can collapse the wave function of an electron that is in a superposition of an excited state and not excited state, and end up with an electron in the ground state, but that doesn't mean it will spiral into the nucleus. You can try to measure the electron's position, and that will put it in a superposition of different energy levels because the energy states are not an eigenstate of position measurements, but still won't involve it losing the last bit of angular momentum that keeps it from falling into the nucleus.

      And of course you reach a conclusion involving arbitrary definitions, as you seem to be discussing some arbitrary concept of "subatomic" and "macroscopic" that are unrelated to the actual work in quantum mechanics.

    20. Re:catastrophically collapse by styrotech · · Score: 1

      How can anything be "nearly infinite"?

      Easy - take the highest possible finite number you can think of... "nearly infinite" is just a bit higher again.

      eg 105 or so is "nearly infinite" to my four year old. "Nearly infinite" might well be higher for you.

    21. Re:catastrophically collapse by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Catastrophically collapse", really? What's catastrophic about it?

      BEER!!!

    22. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is nice and all if you are talking about pure mathematical systems. But in the real world, you could have a system that is theoretically infinite, but effectively finite limited by equipment resolution, or something that is finite but so large that the actual number is not obtainable in any reasonable timescale, etc.

    23. Re:catastrophically collapse by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Does the interaction involve the transfer or absorption of energy (photons)?
      If so => collapse.
      if not =>no collapse.

    24. Re:catastrophically collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most material interactions are electrical"

      Woah, there's lots of stuff that feels gravity and the weak and strong force but don't feel electrical charge.
      Indeed, the stuff that interacts electrically is a tiny fraction -- by total field energy -- of all the stuff in the universe.

      Is the interaction between the piles of electrically quasineutral stuff called the Moon and the Earth "immaterial"?

      The article at the top is really just another form of Quantum Interrogation. Carroll gives a good explanation here:

      http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/02/27/quantum-interrogation/

    25. Re:catastrophically collapse by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Directed by Michael Bay.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    26. Re:catastrophically collapse by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      On top of the corrections that the others have heaped on here, you've got some misconceptions about QM and chemistry.

      the new electrical interaction with the other atom would cause the electrons' WF to collapse and molecules wouldn't form.

      Uh, it's not like molecules can't form if there's not some QM going on. "Having a waveform" isn't, like, a requirement for forming molecules. I'm not sure that sort of idea even makes sense. But say you're measuring how many molecules there are. The waveform definitely has to collapse once you know how many molcules there are. Or a version of you knows a discreet number in one of the worlds that was spawned.

      as the electrons' wave functions immediately collapse and the electrons spiral into the nucleus.

      Yeah, the collapse doesn't really have that sort of effect on the atom. The waveform is a collection of everywhere the electron could be. When it collapses, it chooses one. I mean, I guess one of those possibilities could be the start of... what is that? Lowering it's energy state? Yeah, that's possible, but there has to be a reason it does that. Like, if it's an atom in the middle of a lightning strike. The vast majority of the waveform is going to have the electron jumping to a higher energy state, on account of all that energy around it, but there's a chance it'll go lower.

      Anyway, there's a question out there about how big the system can get before a collapse. You seem to think that individual electrons have to collapse because they're interacting with the nucleus. But no, the waveform can encompass the entire atom. It doesn't matter how the electron interacts with the nucleolus, the whole thing is in superposition until it interacts with something. How big does that go? if a whole atom what about molecules? What about people? Planets? Answer: I dunno. But it appears that QM effects are constrained to small things. But, since all larger things are made up of smaller things, those effects propagate, we see the butterfly effect, and the whole world cannot be considered to be deterministic. It's more like probabilistic. Life is a pachinko game.

      but we have observed quantum behaviour in things as big as a virus

      Huh, really? That's neat. Got a link? I mean, news about the physicists gearing up to do that experiment made the rounds around 2009. But I can't seem to find out their results. Indeed, this article from 2012 seems to imply that the German and Spanish guys failed. Still, in 2012 they showed QM effects on a molecule of 100 atoms (a far cry from the billion of atoms that a virus has) which is something.

      God, I need to read more about this. Apparently this is one of those points of contentions that has been around forever:
      QM observer
      Mind-body
      Wigner's Friend Which, as a thought experiment, includes a separate person in the system existing in quantum superposition (IE, it has a waveform to collapse).

      But I think it's put to rest by the many-world interpretation. It offloads the question of "which one happens when?" to "well if they all happen, which one do I/we experience?". You know, I really don't have the math or physics chops to really understand all this, but the many-world interpretation feels to jive more with the rest of what I know. That's kind of the definition of a bias, but meh.

    27. Re:catastrophically collapse by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, when it collapses, it involves destroying a nearly infinite number of possibilities in an absolutely irreversible way. The collapse is complete. Its pretty much the definition of catastrophic.

      Meh. Life is pretty much a slow motion catastrophic collapse of possibilities.

  4. Oblig /. comment by Alomex · · Score: 0

    Correlation does not imply causation

    1. Re:Oblig /. comment by tgd · · Score: 1, Funny

      Correlation does not imply causation

      Well, if we're going to toss out /. comments that are unrelated to the article ... hmmm....

      "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these superconductors!"

      "It only collapsed because of anticompetitive market practices through a series of shell companies that Microsoft controls."

      or

      "I'm not sure what to think of this until PJ tells me what to think. I'm so PISSED at the NSA for taking her from me!"

    2. Re:Oblig /. comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is that people pull out the "correlation does not imply causation" meme whenever a study is quoted, whether warranted or not in contrast to all other comments you list.

    3. Re:Oblig /. comment by Canazza · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced it colapsed until Netcraft confirms it?

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    4. Re:Oblig /. comment by JustOK · · Score: 1

      There must be some correlation that causes it.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Oblig /. comment by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia it collapses you!

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:Oblig /. comment by Zaatxe · · Score: 1
      --
      So say we all
    7. Re:Oblig /. comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is funny, and indeed there are (many) cases where the meme is warranted.

      There are equally many when the study is of the form "finger pulls trigger, bullet leaves rifle, deer falls dead" concluding "firing bullets kill deer" only to have some noob smugly trod out the "correlation does not imply causation" meme.

    8. Re:Oblig /. comment by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      David Hume has a lot to answer for.

    9. Re:Oblig /. comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not penguins: blind, left-handed dentists without tonsils.

    10. Re:Oblig /. comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded that offtopic comment up should never again have another mod point. -1, completely offtopic.

      But anyway, correlation certainly suggests the possibility of causation, and 3 out of 4 times there is causation. 4 possible scenarios:
      A causes B
      B causes A
      C causes both A and B
      Coincidence

      Alomex, please continue lurking until you come up with something insightful, informative, or funny.

  5. Illusion? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I thought that this "waveform collapse" stuff was an illusion on our part, signifying a certain lack of understanding.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Illusion? by DeathToBill · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    2. Re:Illusion? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

      He's not wrong really. It's a question of interpretation. What the OP's are measuring is de-coherence, not "collapse". I mean every time you take a measurement you're measuring "collapse" from a set of probabilities to an actual state, so that's not a particularly interesting thing to do in this context.

    3. Re:Illusion? by amaurea · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not necessarily. Wavefunction collapse is a part of some interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the venerable Copenhagen interpretation, but many other popular interpretations do not include it. A prominent example of the latter is the many worlds universal wavefunction interpretation.

      Interpretations of quantum mechanics are usually mathematically equivalent, which means that they make exactly the same physical predictions. So an experiment that would be a measurement of wavefunction collapse according to the Copenhagen interpretation would be a measurement of observer entanglement or similar in the many worlds interpretation, and something else in other interpretations. It's a bit like one theory saying that A=4/2 and another saying A=1*2. They agree on every prediction (A=2), and only differ in how they are formulated, and the intuition they give people.

      Popular science reporting is usually very Copenhagen-heavy, but physicists are more mixed, and a large fraction of them would disagree that this experiment has measured wavefunction collapse (i.e. they will think it measured something else interesting).

    4. Re:Illusion? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      There's a certain amount of presumption with the whole superposition of states and then finding only one state upon measurement. However, it's not exactly easy to measure the superposition of states when any such measurement causes it to "collapse" into one particular state.

      Some people prefer the many-worlds explanation where we "select" a reality by performing the measurement. That would imply that the waveform doesn't collapse as such, but the difference is only in interpretation and is not measurable.

      We know "what" happens very precisely, but the "why" part is open to interpretation and there is not really a consensus on that.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    5. Re:Illusion? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Interpretations of quantum mechanics are usually mathematically equivalent

      Now I'm not a physicist but I'm doubtful about that one, for I've heard that the many worlds interpretation is in principle testable against the Copenhagen interpretation.

      Could some physicist explain this little popular science riddle? Preferably with a car analogy.

    6. Re:Illusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in this context, it is kind of the definition of "interpretation." They are called interpretations, because the basic math of quantum mechanics is set regardless of what interpretation you want to use or not use, and the interpretation only comes in when you want to have a more intuitive sense of what the math actually means. Since you are just reinterpreting what the math means, you won't be changing the actual predictions. The only way a difference would come up is if you find a situation where the math makes no sense to one interpretation, although more likely, you just have situations where one interpretation makes it easier to come up with ideas of how to solve the math, even though the other ones still work out in the end.

    7. Re:Illusion? by Prune · · Score: 1

      I guess everyone has their pet interpretation. But there are some especially good ones, even if most people are particularly familiar with Copenhagen and many worlds. Here's one and a few other people fancy: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 and associated back-and-forth between the author and critics (also available on arXiv).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    8. Re:Illusion? by Prune · · Score: 1

      I meant "one I and a few other"

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. Re:Illusion? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      What is the consensus on the metaphysical messiness of the many worlds interpretation. I would argue it is the very opposite of Occam's Razor at work - it invokes and assumes so much (new universes being created every plank time) that can't be explained that it seems little better than saying God chooses which measurement will happen.

      The principle benefit seems to me to be that it renders the interpretation as being outside of science as it is logically not possible to test a many worlds theory. Whereas logically you could test a waveform theory, we just don't know of any way to do it

      For example, there might be a way to measure it using gravity, but we don't have first clue how to manipulate gravity in order to figure this, whereas a many worlds theory doesn't lead to any possibilities, even hypothetical, whereby it could be tested.

      So, it seems it's main use is in making the interpretation problem go away.

    10. Re:Illusion? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      There isn't much consensus on the interpretations of quantum mechanics, so as long as the maths works out, then it's really just a matter of preference.

      A lot of people have problems with the many worlds interpretation due to the huge number of versions of the universes (not sure that should be a word) that we end up not being in. However, collapsing a waveform has a similar issue with all the different possible outcomes being "thrown away" when a measurement is made.

      Either way, the results give us the probability of either finding ourselves in a particular universe or the probability of a particular result, so they both provide far more information than attributing it to a god or gods.

      It shouldn't be possible to devise any kind of test for different interpretations as the maths are identical. The next step would be to have a deeper understanding of why reality works that way and there's a number of different approaches (e.g. string theory, quantum loop theory) but ultimately physics aims at modelling what happens and interpretations aren't helpful unless they help you picture what's going on.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    11. Re:Illusion? by wrf3 · · Score: 1

      Lubos Motl claims that the MWI interpretation of QM is completely false to fact in this post: Simple proof QM implies many worlds don't exist.

    12. Re:Illusion? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I think I agree with you. I prefer the Copenhagen view as it suggests that we just don't really understand how nature really works (I know I'm reliving Einstein and Bohr's' arguements), whereas the MW seems to close off the debate. Neither are supported by and testable (i.e. disprovable) science.

      And there is obviously a revision needed, either fundamental or trivial, to reconcile the quantum and the relativistic theories.

      But (and back to my sounding like an indignant Einstein) the newer ideas, such as string theory and loop gravity, are much more ontologically satisfying than quantum mechanics - they make a claim about what is happening in nature rather than just stating abstract maths that seems at odds with logic as well as intuition.

      It seems very disappointing that physics ended up in a position where it can't actually describe what the world is like - since around 1930 it isn't possible to describe what is being talked about, even by greatly simplifying it. Can anyone find a laymen's book about Chromodynnamics? About Symmetry and Noether's theorem? About weak interactions? Unless you look at it purely mathematically it isn't really possible to get into these things.

    13. Re:Illusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc describes a mathematical model that predicts the outcome observed in this experiment.

  6. OT: Question about waveforms by Stolzy · · Score: 2
    I know that this question is off topic, but I also know there will be many readers of this story who may be able to answer my question. It's something I'd desperately like an answer to, having posted it around to a few folks with no response. . .My understanding of electromagnetics is that there is a waveform. I'd like to know if it is possible for a directly inverse waveform could coincide with, say, a photon of red or blue light, in such a way that it cancels the waveform out, the same way that an inverse waveform in audio engineering will cancel out any sound when played in conjunction with it's natural state.

    Is it possible that two directly inverted waveforms could coexist within universal space, by it photon energy, radio waves, or atomic vibrations?

    Cheers; /-Ian/@minusian

    1. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by Stolzy · · Score: 1

      (Apologies for the typos.)

    2. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes. You have this effect in double slit experiment, there are places where waves cancel out and you have dark place. The problem is that it's almost impossible to generate an inverse waveform from source other than the one which generated your photon. Typically it's done by splitting one waveform.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Waveform "cancellation" is limited by a number of factors. There is always interference, and it takes as much energy to create the canceling waveform as the original, and unless the "inverted" waveform comes from precisely the same source, and orientation, as the original waveform, it cannot cancel the waveforms out everywhere, Moreover, if the canceling waveform is is being generated based on receiving the original waveform, simple lightspeed limitations preclude being able to completely detect and counter-generate a closely matching signal. For stable signals, a reflection counter generated signal is possible: holographic images rely on the light of the same color creating meaningful images based on the recorded interference patterns from the original holographic recording.

      As you've noticed, sound cancellation can work well in a limited, well controlled environment (such as inside the ear of someone wearing noise cancelling headphones). But sound waves are also quite _long_ compared to most light waves, so producing them in phase to to cancel out another signal is relatively easy, and can be done dynamically. And there's the separate mater of "quantum" electromagnetic behavior. Energy is typically "quantized", existing in discreet bundles, for various reasons. You can think of it as sound coming from individual molecules of air, working together. For light, the very small wavelength makes it particularly noticeable, just as a stunningly high sound would have wavelengths on the order of the size of the space occupied by a single air molecule. At those frequencies, attempting to cancel the waves gets caught up in the behavior of individual "photons" of light or "molecules" of air, and controlling the behavior of the whole wave to get complete cancellation gets quite odd.

    4. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      The photon is it's own anti-particle, so in theory you could have a photon meeting it's opposite and thus "cancel out". However, photons can exist in the same state in the same place and thus it's not easy to get a photon to interact with another photon. Typically, you can get an area where you won't detect the photons (think dark areas in double split experiments), but the photon/anti-photons will just pass through each other without interacting.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    5. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      In principle, yes.

      Keep in mind that (in the standard QM theory) the waveform describe by the Schrodinger equation is a probability wave - which is to say that the intensity (amplitude squared) of the wave at any one point in spacetime describes the probability of finding the particle at that point in spacetime.

      So if you have two waves which meet, and they are exactly 180 degree out of phase, then there will be no point in spacetime that has a non-zero probability and so you won't find any particle anywhere (presumably this can't actually happen, as it would violate all sorts of conservation laws for a particle to suddenly have a zero probability of being anywhere - I suspect relativity will give us a way out here).

      If the waves are not exactly out of phase, then you will have places with destructive superposition where the probability is low or zero (hence, the particle will not be found there) but other places where it might be.

    6. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by slew · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complicated, but it's possible to think about this a couple of ways...

      "Inverse" electro-magnetic waves can certainly exist, however, like audio waves, there are some issues... In general, waves carry energy and that energy often implies a momentum (or more abstractly an average propagation direction for the energy). To exactly cancel something, you pretty much are restricted to certain distributions and if you start from different places, but you have to have the same momentum, you really can't cancel it everywhere because of energy and momentum issues.

      Another way to think about is in acoustic case you might imagine something like "perfect" sound cancelling headphones. You might be able to generate an "inverse" wave to minimize the sound in a few places (e.g. near your eardrums), but not the same sounds from other people's perspective. Electromagetic waves are very similar to that respect. You can generate an interference pattern where in certain areas, the energy will be nearly zero, but it of course can't cancel things out everywhere...

      Of course when you dive deeper and start talking about photons, even stranger things happen. One approximate way to look at the relationship between photons and EM-waves is that a wave is just a stream of "virtual" photons that only pop into existance when the wave interacts with something (that requires a force carrier particle). With this interpretation, in places where the electromagnetic fields cancel, you don't have any EM-interaction so no force carrier particles (aka photons) will appear (well technically, a very low probability given the uncertainty pricincple) so you might think of photons being cancelled out in that location by an "inverse" wave.

    7. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by Stolzy · · Score: 1
      TY so much for your response. Your answer has clarified a lot of things for me. I guess that it may still be possible during random intersections of waves in a "microscopic" level, but not enough to explain missing proportions of the Universe. :)

      Cheers mate!

      /-Ian

    8. Re:OT: Question about waveforms by Stolzy · · Score: 1
      Thanks for all the replies, I appreciate it very much. My question was derived from thoughts of the "missing universe" (dark matter+energy). I was thinking that waveforms that may have cancelled each other out would still exert gravitational energy.

      I feel enlightened by all the replies! Tyvm!

      /Stolzy

  7. My idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I immediately pictured a scientist who slowly raised his hand, while shouting: nnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!... as the wave function collapsed.

    1. Re:My idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now i'm imagining that too! Funny stuff

  8. Next year's Nobel? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    Definitely possible.

  9. Information by Warbothong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Wavefunction collapse' is how the Copenhagen Interpretation 'explains' this phenomenon, but like many of its 'explanations' they don't provide a compelling reason for things to happen this way. Terms like 'measurement' go from a precise QM meaning (eg. matrix multiplication) to a vague, ambiguous meaning like 'a concious observer'. This leads to tenuous extrapolations and conclusions, like the distinguished position of observers, the inclusion of conciousness into the interpretation and all the quantum 'explanations' of consciousness which that has spawned.

    Alternative interpretations are much less mysterious. For example, the Many Worlds Interpretation explains it via information transmission. A measument is anything which transmits information from inside the system to outside the system. When a system is measured, it doesn't 'collapse' into one state; rather, the thing which performed the measurement becomes part of the (now larger) system.

    The Transactional Interpretation explains it as two-way communication between events at different times; a measurement is any event which propagates information back in time and a system is only in multiple states because the event which caused it is awaiting the information from the measurement.

    Schrodinger's cat can be used to point out the difference:

    The Copenhagen Interpretation says that the cat is literally both alive and dead at the same time in the box, then when a concious observer (a human) opens the box, the cat immediately becomes either alive or dead. This is very strange, for example why is a concious observer necessary?

    The Many Worlds Interpretation says that the cat is literally both alive and dead at the same time in the box. Anything which interacts with it, for example photons of light, will become part of the system; ie. the light will literally be both a reflection of a living cat and a reflection of a dead cat. If those photons enter my eye then I will literally be both a human who has seen a living cat and a human who has seen a dead cat. If you talk to me, you will literally be a human who has talked to a human who has seen a living cat and a human who has talked to a human who has seen a dead cat, and so on. This propagation is exactly the flow of information between systems; there is nothing magical about humans, except that we happen to be human. A photon would get the same results as us if it repeated our experiments, with no 'concious observer' involved, except for the fact that photons don't tend to perform experiments (ie. the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias).

    1. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

      It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

      If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

      1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
      2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
      3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
      4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
      5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
      6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
      7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
      8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

      Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    2. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, phrased otherwise, the observer becomes correlated with the observed.

    3. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate cats...

    4. Re:Information by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      I just came here to become a person who has seen a video of Schrodinger's cat collapsing. Nothing to see here, move along.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    5. Re:Information by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Well stated. It's remarkable that so many physicists have adhered to the Copenhagen interpretation for so long, stating it as fact when explaining it to laymen and worse, to students of physics when in fact it is a subject of debate among prominent physicists and has been all along. The interpretation itself makes a lot of untestable claims and for that reason alone it ought to be regarded with great skepticism and no conclusions should be drawn from it.

      I also find it remarkable that it's named for Copenhagen. There is or is not a lot of weed to be smoked there.

    6. Re:Information by omnichad · · Score: 1

      'Wavefunction collapse' is how the Copenhagen Interpretation 'explains' this phenomenon, but like many of its 'explanations' they don't provide a compelling reason for things to happen this way. Terms like 'measurement' go from a precise QM meaning (eg. matrix multiplication) to a vague, ambiguous meaning like 'a concious observer'. This leads to tenuous extrapolations and conclusions, like the distinguished position of observers, the inclusion of conciousness into the interpretation and all the quantum 'explanations' of consciousness which that has spawned.

      If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does the wavefunction collapse to make a sound?

    7. Re:Information by wytcld · · Score: 1

      The many worlds model's absurdity is right in its name. It's the belief that we have no choice, make no choices, but just randomly find ourselves in a world where certain things have happened, while duplicates of ourselves, at each instant where different things might happen, including our own different actions, find themselves inhabiting each of those many worlds. That's to say, the many worlds model requires that the illusion of choice model is the correct one for human agency. And not in the Newtonian sense where it's because there is only one causal destiny. Rather it's a claim that there's no one destiny, but we can't choose among the many destinies, and instead must realize them all, in an endless branching into infinite futures, in none of which will we ever have any real freedom, or real choice.

      That contradicts everything we know about human psychology, as well as every possible evolutionary account for the advantage of consciousness. It contradicts evolution itself, since according to many worlds every possibility going forward is realized in one universe or another, even the possibilities which are, in a Darwinian sense, less fit.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    8. Re:Information by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Do you actually know what you're talking about, or have you just read too much science fiction? I don't remember the Copenhagen Interpretation being related to "consciousness", either in the requirement that an observer be "conscious" or in using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness. Are you sure that's not just some whacky interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation that people have come up with more recently, due to misunderstanding?

    9. Re:Information by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      I thought the main point of the copenhagen interpretation was the instrumentalist approach. That is, the mathematical description should not be considered a description of reality but just a tool for calculating probabilities of real events. So, these supposed issues with 'conscious observers' do not apply. There is no real wavefunction and no real collapse. It's just a mathematical description.

      But, even if you take a realist approach to the standard QM theory and argue that the wavefunction is real, conscious observers are still not required. It is a well known and tested fact that you do not need a conscious observer to collapse a wavefunction. Take your classical double slit experiment, put a measuring device by one of the slits to force a collapse of the wavefunction (and thus no interference pattern). Now, put a piece of tape over your measuring devices display so no conscious observer can see it. The result doesn't change.

      Yes, a philosopher or someone taking the collapse notion a bit too seriously would argue that the entire system (detector, double slits, measuring device etc) is in a mixed state until the observer checks the output on the detector but that is quite a stretch. (See the whole Schrodingers Cat debate)

      All measuring devices are huge from a quantum mechanical standpoint. We can barely make calculations on large objects like molecules (and that with rather heavy approximations) and measuring devices typically consist of lots and lots of molecules. It is currently quite impossible to write down a quantum mechanical description of even a simple experiment with a simple measuring device. If we could, maybe we would see that the that the addition of a measuring device causes a mixed state to evolve into a pure state, just by the laws of QM. No conscious observers would then be necessary and the 'collapse' would be just a consequence of the theory. However, making those calculations is way too complicated and far from what we can currently do.

      So, neither the instrumentalist or realist interpretation of standard QM theory requires conscious observers.

    10. Re:Information by Jamu · · Score: 2

      It doesn't contradict evolution. The most popular worlds are still Darwinian.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    11. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since your second paragraph is nonsensical, your argument boils down to "I don't like it".
      People didn't like the idea that Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.
      People didn't like the idea of having monkey-like ancestors.
      You don't like the Many Worlds interpretation.
      Every era will have people like you.

    12. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatever the experiment detected is most probably not collapse

      ftfy

    13. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      It's the belief that we have no choice, make no choices

      No, it's the "belief" that our choices are physics. No more and, most importantly and fundamental, no less. "Choice" is a function a physical brain executes upon physical information, it's the name we do to our subjective perception (another physical function) of our brain doing a bidirectional search between our set of initial conditions, the things we subjectively call "can", and our set of goals, the things we subjectively call "should". When paths between our several "cans" and "shoulds" are finds, we weight them and "chose" the one with the most weight.

      So, yes, it's deterministic, but no, it is no less a choice that if we had that magic undefined and undefinable something people confusedly call "free will", which in turn, in fact and physically is but the fact of having a huge set of "cans" and "shoulds" and thus "choices".

      That contradicts everything we know about human psychology,

      No, it doesn't. What it contradicts are naive, unscientific "knowledges" of human psychology which every day gets more and more refuted by advances in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology and neuroscience.

      as well as every possible evolutionary account for the advantage of consciousness. It contradicts evolution itself, since according to many worlds every possibility going forward is realized in one universe or another, even the possibilities which are, in a Darwinian sense, less fit.

      Also no. Unfit species continue being non-viable no matter how many branches exist. The process of natural selection doesn't stop working just because you have an infinite set of parallel universes. It'll still happen in all of them.

      In fact, many-world is one of the most powerful arguments against creationist arguments based on the "improbability" of consciousness appearing "by pure randomness". If you have infinite parallel universes going through natural selection, yes, you'll have infinitely many where life never emerged, infinitely many where it never reached the unicellular stage, infinitely many where it never reached the multicellular stage, and so on and so forth up to infinitely many where it never reached consciousness, but also infinitely many where all the selective pressures aligned just so as to allow cognition to conscience to emerge. We, being born in one of such universes, are lucky enough to be able to look back and find ourselves developing in a mere 4 billion or so years of nice events that lead to us, but that's neither exceptional nor rare, because any probability, infinitesimal as it might be provided it isn't 0, when multiplied by infinity becomes 1.0 and is guaranteed to happen somewhere, infinitely many times.

      But even if your interpretation was correct, it would be meaningless. Science is reductionist. Natural selection is a by-product of more fundamental laws. If those laws were to state that some universes are, so to speak, "gentler" and hence allowing for less fit species to thrive despite the odds, then in those universes you'd have a slightly different high level law in place of natural selection, which maybe included "our" natural selection as a special case. But that's neither here nor there. The multiverse we and our future branchings live in isn't of the gentler kind, so let's focus on things as they actually are and on how we can improve them starting from where we in fact are. That's all the "choice" we have, and it's plenty, for infinitely many universes depend on it. :-)

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    14. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Edits: that -> than; finds -> found; gets -> get etc. Lack of editing, the bane of ./ ... :-(

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    15. Re:Information by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      And why does contradicting human psychology cause problem in a physics theory?

      I am in no way up on deep QM theory, but it seems to me that a lot of QM goes against our built in psychology. And that is ok. Humans are built to survive WAY above the quantum level. Early homonids didn't need to understand quantum theory to hit an animal with a stick. (or not). Their development was not based on something that by definition they could not observe or recognize.

      As I said, I am not no expert, but if one theory breaks a bunch of laws of physics, and another doesn't, the first theory seems to hold more weight. Even if that theory removes choice from the equation of existence.

      This also applies to evolution. If consciousness can't perceive the quantum split, then it can effectively exist blissfully ignorant of it.

      On a side note, the removal of choice as a variable is NOT the same as removing choice. In a way that is a beautiful theory because while we cannot perceive all of the potential options, they are all real, and all valid. There is a serenity in that knowledge.

      My personal belief is that probably all of these theories are fundamentally wrong and in 500 years they will look back in QM like we look at 'equants' today.

    16. Re:Information by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations are not the only two out there, though they seem to be the only two discussed. I personally prefer objective collapse theory.

      Here the wavefunction is an actual physical phenomenon, collapse is not subjective while still being non-deterministic and having no hidden variables. You also don't have to consider both alive and dead cats or many simultaneous worlds you have to take on faith.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    17. Re:Information by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is how the Copenhagenists forget the cat can determine it's own existence simply by meowing.

    18. Re:Information by Warbothong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you actually know what you're talking about, or have you just read too much science fiction? I don't remember the Copenhagen Interpretation being related to "consciousness", either in the requirement that an observer be "conscious" or in using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness. Are you sure that's not just some whacky interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation that people have come up with more recently, due to misunderstanding?

      Well I've got a Master's degree in Physics, which doesn't make me an expert in all things Physicsy, but the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't exactly cutting edge.

      The Copenhagen Interpretation itself doesn't mention conscious observers, but it makes a vague distinction between measurements (which collapse the wavefunction) and non-measurements (which don't), without actually explaining what the difference is.

      For example, in the classic Young's Slits experiment, light shines on to a surface containing two slits. If we measure which slit a photon passes through, it will appear on the other side as expected. If we don't measure which slit a photon passes through, it will pass through both and cause an interference pattern. But what consitutes a measurement and, more importantly, why does it depend on something 'we' do?

      According to (Heisenberg's formulation of) the theory, everything can be modelled as matrix transformations. A unitary transformation is not a measurement, so it will not collapse the wavefunction. A non-unitary transformation is a measurement and will cause collapse (specifically, the system will collapse to an eigenstate in the basis of the transformation). All well and good *in theory*, but it's difficult to apply to the real world. Is "looking at something" a unitary transformation? Is "poking with a stick" a unitary transformation? It's difficult to tell. What's more, transformations aren't just caused by actions, they depend on the configuration of the whole system. For example, we can collapse a wavefunction by measuring where a particle *isn't*!

      So, in the case of Young's Slits, why is it that when *we* try to interact with a photon its wavefunction collapses (ie. a measurement is made), but it *doesn't* happen when the slits themselves interact with the photons, or electrons in the air absorb and re-emit the photon, etc.? The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't say anything about this; it makes the distinction and leaves it at that. But if there's a distinction, what is it? What's the only thing that sets apart all of the possible measurement-making things and all of the possible non-measurement-making things? In all seriousness, the answer to that question is consciousness. This has perplexed Physicists for decades, leading to philosophies like "shut up and calculate".

      However, it turns out that this is the wrong question to be asking in the first place! According to Many Worlds, measurement is all about information flow. If information is transmitted between two things, they become part of a QM system with a corresponding wavefunction; it doesn't matter whether those things are electrons, slits, screens or humans.

      An analogy would be to think of the boundary of the system as being like a bubble, expanding to engulf anything which interacts information-theoretically with the contents. What Copenhagen calls 'wavefunction collapse' would be the moment when that bubble engulfs the experimenter. According to Copenhagen, when the bubble hits the experimenter it bursts, causing the entire contents of the bubble to instantly take a fixed configuration (as an aside, since QM systems can be any size, this line of thinking has also lead to the 'faster than light' nonsense, since the bubble must burst instantly everywhere as soon as anyone measures its contents). Accoring to Many Worlds, engulfing an experimenter is just like engulfing an electron, or a table, or a planet; the bubble just keeps growing as long as information keeps flowing.

      *From the point of view of the observer* these inter

    19. Re:Information by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I hate cats...

      Schrodinger's bumper sticker?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, in the classic Young's Slits experiment, light shines on to a surface containing two slits. If we measure which slit a photon passes through, it will appear on the other side as expected. If we don't measure which slit a photon passes through, it will pass through both and cause an interference pattern. But what consitutes a measurement and, more importantly, why does it depend on something 'we' do?

      It is sufficient that there is something which interacts with the light in a way depending on its path. It's not necessary to actually look at the result of that interaction.

    21. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that unlike the other examples you gave, "Many Worlds interpretation" does not make any predictions that distinguish it from any other interpretation, which is why (again unlike the ohter examples) quantum interpretations are not science but just philosophy.

    22. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Copenhagen interpratation does not imply that consciousness causes collapse. That's a strawman used by many-worlds proponents.

    23. Re:Information by seibai · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is bizarrely propagandist for a site that would claim itself to be rational. It's also, ironically enough, wrong.

      5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.

      Actually, many worlds violates CPT symmetry - worldlines divide only forward in time, not backwards. CPT symmetry requires that there be no physical bias to the direction of time. CPT symmetry is plainly untrue anyway, as we have entropy. Trying to use it as an argument against Copenhagen is disingenuous at best.

      MW shows every sign of being equally wrong with every other interpretation of QM at the moment. The truth is that for many people, it represents a convenient belief. Most of its advocates lack understanding of the effective distinctions between interpretations in any case, which leads to sites and arguments like this. This is particularly bad in followers of Dawkins who argue that MW solves the fine-tuning problem, where half of the problem arises from balance in mathematical entities that QM has no plausible "ratchet" for.

    24. Re:Information by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      You can say the freedom is in which of the worlds your consciousness chooses to be. But I agree, it's silly. It's a desperate attempt to preserve the belief that the world(s) out there exist(s) objectively, solidly, and independently of observers.

    25. Re:Information by nine-times · · Score: 1

      So, in the case of Young's Slits, why is it that when *we* try to interact with a photon its wavefunction collapses (ie. a measurement is made), but it *doesn't* happen when the slits themselves interact with the photons

      Well I thought the point is that the slits *are* interacting with the photon, which is why you get interference patterns. Interfering with the light in a way that would require it go through one slit or the other will cause it to go through one slit regardless of what you're "trying" to do. It's not about intention or consciousness.

      Personally, I think your notion of "information flow" makes it more weird, spooky, and bound up with consciousness. Because what determines whether a thing is "information" if not consciousness?

      It reminds me of how people talk about relativity, and how things can move faster than light as long as they don't contain information. Speaking of it that way implies that we could send a signal back in time, so long as it message was garbled and unintelligible, which is not the point. To my understanding, it's more a way of determining whether the "faster than light" travel is somehow illusory.

    26. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and worse, to students of physics when in fact it is a subject of debate among prominent physicists and has been all along

      I can't speak for all such teachings, but I've had to take QM from two different profs in undergrad and another in graduate school, then TA for another two professors teaching a QM to physics students. Interpretations took a back seat in all of those courses, as they mainly pushed the everything coming from the math side of things. The interpretations come down basically two uses: philosophical and pedagogical. The former is all of the debate. The latter is what is more likely to come up in QM material being taught at the low level, or to non-physics majors. It is an attempt to filling the gaps in understanding that would otherwise been filled with more math, and which suffers the same faults any other physics or math topics experience when abbreviated or simplified beyond technically correct. The interpretations are not just useful to teaching students though, as they can help with how you handle trying to solve new problems, but what interpretation is relevant is going to depend on the person as much as the problem at hand.

    27. Re:Information by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

      On the contrary: It is a collapse... of the Copenhagen interpretation itself. One that has been happening since such interpretation was given; Almost, as the researchers say, in slow motion...

    28. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That contradicts everything we know about human psychology, as well as every possible evolutionary account for the advantage of consciousness. It contradicts evolution itself, since according to many worlds every possibility going forward is realized in one universe or another, even the possibilities which are, in a Darwinian sense, less fit.

      Coarse Graining removes these philosophical mysteries from most conversations about the impressions captured in shapes of mathematical models of the reality behind reality. Both interpretations are fundamentally unsatisfactory for the layman and the language and resources available to him.

    29. Re:Information by Prune · · Score: 1

      Many worlds is just one way to resolve the problem. There are others one that do effectively, without resorting to consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    30. Re:Information by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I would only point out that humans lack a fundamental understanding of entropy. Given all of the output state required over a timeframe in a locality, such can be reversed... Encryption, or more specifically, Decryption proves this mathematically. If one bit is gone, then the reconstruction can not occur. Further, the world lines do not diverge. They are all merely a single world line which are superpositions of themselves, not completely unlike a hologram. The quantum theory is wrong. It's right there in the name. "Quanta" No. That doesn't exist. The universe does not have units of data, you just have shitty tools with which to measure it. TFA demonstrates this fact quite nicely. A superposition collapsing in "slow motion", No. It is simply that the super positions are abstract representation, like the bits on a magnetic hard drive which are never fully ones or zeros. As ECC has shown the way to ensure a drive's bits remain valid, so to will multisampling and checksums be utilized in "quantum" computing.

      The problem with arguing semantics in a field which is wrong is that you're wrong either way. The next theory you invent will be wrong as well. You will discover with ever more precise tools that your working theories are invalid at the minute degree. If you do not believe me, then you are ignorant of the history your existence would feed forward unto you.

    31. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MW interpretation is largely nonsense.

      Personally, I'm not a fan because it seems to jump from "we don't understand uncertainty" to "let's explain why we can't understand it". It's gotten popularity, I think, largely because the concept of parallel universes is fascinating and once it gets some sort of footing in reality, even a shakey one, it'll get latched onto. It's not terribly unlike how the idea that black holes distort space and time, therefore flying a space ship into one makes it a wormhole or a time machine or whatever in popular science fiction.

    32. Re:Information by Prune · · Score: 1

      Here's another good interpretation that avoids mixing up consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    33. Re:Information by Prune · · Score: 1

      I'm not an aderent to many worlds, but your argument against it flawed. The less fit ones simply occur with a smaller frequency.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    34. Re:Information by Prune · · Score: 1

      Try this one http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 Point made about interpretations being equally wrong, but to borrow the phrasing of Animal Farm, some are more equally wrong than others...

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    35. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Actually, many worlds violates CPT symmetry - worldlines divide only forward in time, not backwards.

      Your link provides this objection but also the response: "The splitting is time asymmetric; this observed temporal asymmetry is due to the boundary conditions imposed by the Big Bang". Yudkowsky explains this in a comment in the thread in next paragraph's first link: "If you took one world and extrapolated backward, you'd get many pasts. If you take the many worlds and extrapolate backward, all but one of the resulting pasts will cancel out! Quantum mechanics is time-symmetric." (emphasis mine) So the violation is apparent. In fact, if the laws of physics lead to a Big Crunch, then the same cancellation happens forward in time, with alternate futures canceling out until only only one remains at the crunch point. As far as I know however the consensus seems to be that there won't be a Big Crunch, so the branching continues, perhaps without reality ever reaching a point were cancellations start occurring. Or not.

      But the Less Wrong folk go further than Many-Worlds. They also consider Barbour's Timeless physics as most probably correct, what entirely removes time from the equation (literally as is the case). As such what we subjectively experience as time flow, time-dependent causality and entropy increasing, not to mention what we conceptually picture as universes branching, wouldn't be a proper description of what goes on at reality's base level. On the contrary, all states of reality, from the point of zero entropy / one world towards the other extreme of maximum entropy / whatever-worlds would form a static plenum, with causality reframed as a set of mathematical relations between static states.

      So, no, not disingenuous at all. Maybe wrong, yes, but still a valid counterpoint.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    36. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      it seems to jump from "we don't understand uncertainty" to "let's explain why we can't understand it"

      No, that's incorrect. Many-Worlds come from a simple realization: Quantum Mechanics works the same without the collapse postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation. So, by Occam's Razor, we take the simpler, collapse-less version, and see what it says, without prejudging. And what it says is this: there is no "size" above which entanglement ends and classical, non-QM physics begins. As such, the whole of QM, superposition include, also applies to the whole of the Universe. Hence, many-worlds superimposed. QED.

      That science fiction predicted this, or before it religion (Hinduism and to a minor extent Buddhism both have the concept of infinite parallel worlds), has no weight on the matter. It's no more an argument against the Many-Worlds concept than the fact that the Ancient Greek thought of atoms would be an argument against the Standard Model.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    37. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All observation is done by physical systems (ie. eyeballs, sensors). There is nothing human-specific or consciousness specific here. I hate it when quantum collapse discussions have the author saying "When a conscious human observes..." or some such. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of physics and information theory.

    38. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your characterization of MW is completely wrong and you don't seem to actually understand what it is.

      Instead of reading web pages from charlatans and uneducated non-physicists like Eliezer Yudkovski, you should read what actual physicists have to say about MW:

      http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/hugh-everetts-many-worlds.html

    39. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be premature to call Many Worlds "correct", but at this point we need to keep it in the pool of possibilities and not eliminate it without a valid reason (like the GP attempted to do).

    40. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Copenhagen Interpretation says that the cat is literally both alive and dead at the same time in the box, then when a concious observer (a human) opens the box, the cat immediately becomes either alive or dead. This is very strange, for example why is a concious observer necessary?

      I wish all those who feel compelled to ramble on about infinite universes, cats and mystic properties of having a brain would just stop talking and think about the consequences their foolishness is having on those downwind.

      In any experiment involving cats part of the detector that triggers death of cat might be in a superposition and that's *IT*... everything down line the triggering and subsequent killing of the cat sure as heck is not...at least to anything we would recognize as a cat so just stop with the mystic garbage...not you...specifically but the morons who keep spouting this shit.

      To round out my tirade there is no such thing as "observation" ... The universe does not support reading, adding or removing .. there is one and only one operation allowed and that is interaction. The universe does not exist in any context other than interaction. So stop with the observer garbage.

    41. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, by Occam's Razor, we take the simpler,

      The problem with Occam's Razor in such situations, is that there is no objective definition of what "simpler" means. Otherwise, the debating over interpretations would have been over long, long ago. Instead, pulling out his razor just turns the arguement from, "which interpretation is better," to, "which interpretation is simpler," which doesn't really change anything.

      And what it says is this: there is no "size" above which entanglement ends and classical, non-QM physics begins.

      This is completely unrelated to different interpretations. QM, using any of the popular interpretations or not, allows entanglement and quantum effects on any scale and also can be reduced down to classical physics.

    42. Re:Information by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      I would certainly agree that the Copenhagen interpretation has lots of problems. It was one of the very first interpretations ever proposed, and the only good argument for it was the lack of any alternatives. Now we have lots of alternatives.

      But many worlds has pretty serious problems too. It doesn't actually explain anything, much less make any testable predictions. It essentially comes down to 1) the universe consists entirely of white noise, 2) white noise can be viewed as a superposition of all possible patterns, 3) therefore, whatever you observe, that just means you are part of a particular piece of the white noise that includes that pattern. There's no evidence for the claim that the universe really does consist of white noise (that is, that all those other possible realities actually exist).

      All arguments in favor of MW basically seem to come down to, "Assume standard QM is a complete and accurate description of reality, assume the wavefunction is the most fundamental ontological object, then remove the collapse of the wavefunction, and you're left with MW." Which isn't very convincing and involves a lot of unjustified assumptions. Especially when there are much better interpretations available (transactional, time symmetric, etc.) that actually have explanatory power, not to mention being potentially testable.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    43. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      The problem with Occam's Razor in such situations, is that there is no objective definition of what "simpler" means.

      Actually, there is. It's called Solomonoff's Induction", the mathematically formalized version of Occam's Razor. What it says in practical terms is roughly that you must be able to convert your competing hypotheses into their shortest algorithmic form runnable in a given Turing machine so that running all these algorithms will output that phenomenon. The simpler theory is the shortest of them all, measured in bits.

      Notice that this formalization doesn't care on the size of the output, only that the algorithm is shorter and outputs the phenomenon. Copenhagen and Many-Worlds may both provide the same observed output, and Many-Worlds can have lots of additional output that Copenhagen doesn't have, but by being algorithmically shorter, literally equal to Copenhagen minus the collapse postulate, it "wins".

      This is completely unrelated to different interpretations. QM, using any of the popular interpretations or not, allows entanglement and quantum effects on any scale and also can be reduced down to classical physics.

      I don't know whether the Copenhagen interpretation has been updated to allow for superposition at macroscopic scales, but as far as I remember its defendants were very adamant in that at some scale the collapse caused all the weird quantum phenomena to disappear and classical physics to hold as something different from QM for everything above it. Has this changed?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    44. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      All arguments in favor of MW basically seem to come down to, "Assume standard QM is a complete and accurate description of reality, assume the wavefunction is the most fundamental ontological object, then remove the collapse of the wavefunction, and you're left with MW." Which isn't very convincing and involves a lot of unjustified assumptions.

      I don't think they're assumptions really. Many-Worlds is understood by its defendants basically as the default option. Absent anything else, it's what everyone should take as their baseline, unless experimentally proven otherwise. Copenhagen happens to affirm that there's a something else, the collapse, so for "many-worlders" it's the obligation of "copenhagers" to show there's such an additional effect in reality, not for MW to show there isn't. Now, if some more complex interpretation has testable stuff, and it happens to be repeatedly tested and not-falsified, then sure, by all means let's adopt it. Until then however the baseline (and its logical consequences) should remain.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    45. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is. It's called Solomonoff's Induction" [wikipedia.org], the mathematically formalized version of Occam's Razor.

      But for the vast majority of discussions and arguments where Occam's Razor is used, the ideas and theories being discussed are so abstract and distant from any actual Turing machine argument, that such a definition of "simpler" is effectively useless. You didn't provide any such algorithm here, you only assume that it would agree with your current views. You're still basically taking the statement, "This one is right because I like it better," and shielding it behind a subjective interpretation of Occam's Razor (even if it would be theoretically objective, it isn't the way you are using it). For the exact same reasons you argue things would be simpler without state collapsing, others have argued their interpretation (Copenhagen, and others as there are more than two) are simpler because they don't require the assumptions that go into Many Worlds. It is a pointless venture to act like yours is objectively simpler, and it doesn't add anything to the understanding of QM to argue or discuss things that way.

      , but as far as I remember its defendants were very adamant in that at some scale the collapse caused all the weird quantum phenomena to disappear and classical physics to hold as something different from QM for everything above it. Has this changed?

      I haven't seen any issues in recent times considering experiments have been observing quantum effects on large and larger systems. I didn't see any such arguments that there was a certain size beyond which quantum became classical when studying quantum mechanics in graduate school over two decades ago. I don't remember any such issues from older works on statistical mechanics of quantum systems showing they acted classically when enough stuff was going on you couldn't distinguish actions of individual components of a system anymore in specific situations (i.e. the collapsing of wave states is no longer relevant or even part of why things acted classically on larger scales). And even Bohr referred to in a similar way that it isn't about size, but about how many quantum numbers were involved and degrees of freedom. So I don't know how far out of date you are, if it is even proper to say such a view was ever "in date."

    46. Re:Information by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're assumptions really. Many-Worlds is understood by its defendants basically as the default option.

      But they are assumptions. MW asserts that all the other realities we don't observe (all the rest of the white noise) is part of ontological reality. And it doesn't present any evidence to justify that assertion. You may find it a plausible assumption, or a completely implausible one, but it certainly is an assumption. MW has no more claim to being a default option than any other interpretation—and, I would argue, less than some.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    47. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't come from the rational many-worlds proponents, just the New Age Woo-Woo ones like Fred Alan Wolf, Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav etc.

    48. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Instead of reading web pages from charlatans and uneducated non-physicists like Eliezer Yudkovski, you should read what actual physicists have to say about MW:

      I don't think an article that makes analogies about Many-Worlds with political egalitarianism and inserts Hitler and Stalin in the mix should count as particularly well balanced, but I admit the text and the comments below it were quite very interesting, although not for the reasons you state, but because it shows a clear cut contemporaneous case of soft Instrumentalism. Soft because the author doesn't reach the more hardcore levels of refusing the reality of any theoretical entity, but when he reaches down far enough he stops and, as every classical Instrumentalist before him, on a variety of fields, says what basically amounts to: "these, they don't mean anything, they're just tools". In fact he says it many, many times, so I'll limit myself to show just four examples:

      a) From the text: "Physics isn't obliged to answer physically meaningless questions and indeed, one may use quantum phenomena to show that all such questions whether "something was real before it was seen" are meaningless and can't have objective answers."

      b) From an earlier comment: "(...) the wave function is not butter. It is not any other objectively real object, either. It is a collection of probability amplitudes and they have no other meaning than that they're building blocks in calculable probabilities."

      c) From an intermediate comment: "You may mean many things by an 'idealist' but in all interpretations of the word, I may be classified as a 'proud idealist', not a closet one. (...) it's true that the only exact meaning of the wave function is a tool to encode all information about the subjective knowledge."

      d) From a later comment: "Realism is an assumption that was true in classical physics - approximate theories used until the 19th century. This assumption was proved not to hold in this world in 1925-1926 and anyone who hasn't managed to notice yet is an imbecile."

      Osiander would approve. :-)

      Now, don't get me wrong. Instrumentalism has its purposes, one of which is relativising (in the sociological meaning of the word) competing explanations of the world when a single one hasn't yet become dominant so as to make everyone comfortable in openly discussing them. After all, those theories are "just" meaningless conceptualizing, mere "useful" tools in the toolset of those occupied with "real" world but not "actual" descriptions of reality.

      However there always arrive a point when doing this stops being useful and a return to Realism becomes mandatory otherwise things don't advance. For at a later time, upon many conflicting new theoretical frameworks, Instrumentalism again returning in force.

      And thus the pendulum swings.

      Let's see how much time it takes for QM to complete the transition.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    49. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      You didn't provide any such algorithm here, you only assume that it would agree with your current views.

      Because we're simplifying. But the idea is indeed simple. If I put the QM equations in a computer and make it run then in principle, given enough time, it should (at least it's expected) start showing galaxies, planets etc. Sure, a few pieces are still missing such as Quantum Gravity, but the gist of it is that the set of all fundamental laws of physics are the algorithm. So we have at least two candidates: one with this set of laws, and one that has this same set plus an additional one: the collapse postulate. So the question is: as far as what's observable goes, do they produce different results? If not, if the smaller set is enough, then why opt for the bigger set? Notice: "because of unobservable consequence x" shouldn't have weight either way.

      In any case, thanks for the observations about size. I'll look further into it.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    50. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      But they are assumptions. MW asserts that all the other realities we don't observe (all the rest of the white noise) is part of ontological reality. And it doesn't present any evidence to justify that assertion. You may find it a plausible assumption, or a completely implausible one, but it certainly is an assumption.

      I'd say it can be taken both ways. You can either start with QM alone and not assume the collapse postulate because it's unneeded, then conclude: "Oh, this implies there's a multiverse out there. Interesting." Or you can start assuming: "Hey, a multiverse existing is neat, let me search a sciencey-something that supports it!" and arrive at Many-Worlds because it provides you the conclusion you already wanted. The first one has no assumption other than "Let's see what the equations say when I don't artificially restrain them", while the second one is basically composed of assumption. So I guess it's a matter of checking with every MWI defender what he himself is going for.

      Notice that the same can work in reverse for the Copenhagen interpretation. Someone who started from a collapse-less QM might well find the MWI implications abhorrent and seek something that'd make him comfortable with only one world existing. Yudkowsky has a small piece of fiction in which he imagines a world where MWI is dominant, taught in schools, and as a result religious-based "One Christer" political movements appear insisting that schools should "teach the controversy". :-)

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    51. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Many worlds is just one way to resolve the problem. There are others one that do effectively, without resorting to consciousness

      Thanks, I've added them to my reading queue.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    52. Re:Information by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, the answer to that question is consciousness.

      That's like saying "you can't explain this, therefore God did it".
      There is no answer to the question, and may never be. It may not even be a meaningful question.

    53. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you seem to fundamentally misunderstand both the many worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation. If you put the first principles of quantum mechanics into a computer, the interpretation is irrelevant, as the computer will crunch away with the actual math. In some sense, you could argue no interpretations are correct, because none of them are needed to get the predictions of quantum mechanics. They certainly help teaching the material and with coming with ideas to solve the math though.

      You can keep arguing all you want that because Many-Worlds lacks the concept of collapsing waveforms it is therefore simpler, but seem to completely miss that those pushing for other interpretations are just as convinced the concept of splitting worlds and the postulated existence of multiple worlds makes Many-Worlds the more complex one. In the end, people trying that on both sides are being rather pointless.

    54. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice that the same can work in reverse for the Copenhagen interpretation....

      You conveniently left out the other half, that someone starting from QM alone could not assume MWI because it appears unneeded and conclude, "Oh, this implies there is wavefunction collapse."

    55. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      those pushing for other interpretations are just as convinced the concept of splitting worlds and the postulated existence of multiple worlds makes Many-Worlds the more complex one

      I'm using a somewhat precise definition of complexity, based on Solomonoff. If others see differently then either they're using another definition, or one of us is mistaken on how we use the concept. Let's suppose it's the former. What's the formal definition of complexity they're using?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    56. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      You conveniently left out the other half, that someone starting from QM alone could not assume MWI because it appears unneeded and conclude, "Oh, this implies there is wavefunction collapse."

      Them that someone has to deal with that list of 8 difficulties, and solve each one.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    57. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, what actual experience do you have with actually using and applying quantum mechanics at the math level do you have? Have you at least had the generic graduate QM course that nearly every physicist has had that covers how the math is used, or have you had any experience at trying to apply QM to new problems?

    58. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name a formal definition of complexity that can actually give an objective answer in this case. You're not actually anywhere close to applying the Solomonoff definition by just assuming that wave function collapse is harder to program into a Turing machine than world line splitting, when neither is anywhere near the point of being described by a Turing machine. And the whole thing is extra pointless because a Turing machine brute forcing quantum mechanics would need neither. A major part of the interpretation debate is precisely because different interpretations haven't been differentiated on any formal, objective level.

      You sound like someone trying to argue that the exponential function is simpler than the sine function for the exact same reason other people argue the sine function is simpler than the exponential function, e.g. both stating that one has to assume the existence of complex numbers to derive the other. Or for a more loaded example, this is like watching someone argue that the principle of natural selection proves people with skin color X are better than color Y, while others say Y is better than X, and then asking "Well, what definition of fitness should I be using?" as if that were the core of the issue.

      Might as well have just started out saying, "Solomonoff complexity proves me right, but the proof is too long to put in the margins."

    59. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would advise you to learn information theory and its relation with physics, it has been more than 30+ years...

    60. Re:Information by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, the answer to that question is consciousness.

      That's like saying "you can't explain this, therefore God did it".
      There is no answer to the question, and may never be. It may not even be a meaningful question.

      Note that the quote you took is from an embellishment of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which I am specifically arguing against because I think it is full of non-explanations like this.

      Anyway, to play devil's advocate I would argue that it's not the same thing at all. We know that consciousness exists, even though we may not be able to define it exactly. It is a perfectly valid answer to the question, since it's a property which all experimenters possess but no experimental apparatus has; we could argue that Schroedinger's cat is conscious, in which case we could predict that the wavefunction will collapse when the cat observes whether the poison is released, not when the box is opened.

      If the quote you took were a little longer, you would see I already said that it's the wrong question to ask! The point is that consciousness only appears to be special because of anthropic bias. Let's say we replace Schroedinger's cat with a human experimenter A, inside the box, who measures the decay of the radioactive source. According to Copenhagen, A's act of measurement will collapse the wavefunction and hence by the time another experimenter B opens the box to look at the contents, the outcome is already determined.

      According to Many Worlds, A will gain information about the source, which *looks like* the wavefunction has collapsed, but actually they have just become part of it. From B's perspective, the contents of the box is still indeterminate. When B opens the box, they become part of the wave function too, which *appears to B* like it's collapsed, but if we put the whole thing in another box, then the source, A and B will still be indeterminate to another experimenter C outside this larger box.

      Now, let's say we do the same experiment with something that's not conscious, like a table. Copenhagen says Table A will not collapse the wavefunction; Many Worlds says that the wavefunction will *look* like it's collapsed from Table A's perspective, but tables don't care about this kind of thing. Likewise Copenhagen says Table B won't collapse the wavefunction; Many Worlds says it would *look* like it's collapsed from Table B's perspective; but again, Table B doesn't have a perspective since it's a table. And so on.

      Copenhagen implies that there's a fundamental difference between conscious and non-conscious observations. Many Worlds says that the distinction is simply between 'the information hasn't reached us yet' versus 'the information has now reached us', where 'us' can be defined as conscious beings *because we are conscious*. Many Worlds proposes an equivalent distinction between non-table-like and table-like observations, which is the difference between 'the information hasn't reached a table yet' and 'the information has now reached a table'.

    61. Re:Information by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think your notion of "information flow" makes it more weird, spooky, and bound up with consciousness. Because what determines whether a thing is "information" if not consciousness?

      It reminds me of how people talk about relativity, and how things can move faster than light as long as they don't contain information. Speaking of it that way implies that we could send a signal back in time, so long as it message was garbled and unintelligible, which is not the point. To my understanding, it's more a way of determining whether the "faster than light" travel is somehow illusory.

      In this context "information" has a precise Mathematical meaning with an exact Physical manifestation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

      It's one of those unfortunate words which can lead to misunderstandings, since it can mean many things in everyday language, but also has a precise technical meaning. Another example of such a word is "chaos".

    62. Re:Information by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      It is a well known and tested fact that you do not need a conscious observer to collapse a wavefunction. Take your classical double slit experiment, put a measuring device by one of the slits to force a collapse of the wavefunction (and thus no interference pattern). Now, put a piece of tape over your measuring devices display so no conscious observer can see it. The result doesn't change.

      Yes, a philosopher or someone taking the collapse notion a bit too seriously would argue that the entire system (detector, double slits, measuring device etc) is in a mixed state until the observer checks the output on the detector but that is quite a stretch. (See the whole Schrodingers Cat debate)

      I hope you're not implying that a piece of tape can stop the inexorable march of entropy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ;)

      All measuring devices are huge from a quantum mechanical standpoint. We can barely make calculations on large objects like molecules (and that with rather heavy approximations) and measuring devices typically consist of lots and lots of molecules. It is currently quite impossible to write down a quantum mechanical description of even a simple experiment with a simple measuring device. If we could, maybe we would see that the that the addition of a measuring device causes a mixed state to evolve into a pure state, just by the laws of QM. No conscious observers would then be necessary and the 'collapse' would be just a consequence of the theory. However, making those calculations is way too complicated and far from what we can currently do.

      So, neither the instrumentalist or realist interpretation of standard QM theory requires conscious observers.

      I agree that this largeley results from our lack of ability to apply theory to experiment; as I mentioned in another post, is "poking with a stick" a unitary transformation? I think the information-theoretic view is useful, because it makes a precise distinction between an experiment/measurement/observation (ie. something which *must* extract information) and everything else (which *may* extract information, but could theoretically be cooled/isolated/etc. to prevent interaction).

      For example, if we place a photon-detector at one of Young's Slits, then isolate the whole thing, the photon will collapse to one of the two slits, but we don't know which; so we still have a superposition, this time between which individual slit. Hence what was previously a 'measurement' is now simply a different experimental configuration. We can think of this like adding elements to a circuit in a quantum computer; we bias the states of the system, but we still don't know which one it's in until we measure the output.

    63. Re:Information by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not implying that a piece of tape can stop the inexorable march of entropy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ;)

      Do you not have faith in duct tape? Enough duct tape can stop anything!

    64. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Nope, autodidact here. My formal training is in Philosophy of Science: deduction, induction, falsifiability, reductionism, different formal logics etc. The tool set all hard sciences use.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    65. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      You're not actually anywhere close to applying the Solomonoff definition by just assuming that wave function collapse is harder to program into a Turing machine than world line splitting, when neither is anywhere near the point of being described by a Turing machine.

      You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. The collapse adds an extra "if" block:

      if ( measurement ) {
          for ( i = 0; i < probabilities; i++ ) {
              if ( i != measurement ) {
                  drop( &state[i] );
              }
          }
      }

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    66. Re:Information by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well it's important to note that your "precise mathematical definition" was not a concept that we started with and applied an unfortunate word to it. The "precise technical meaning" was an attempt to refine and nail down what 'information' meant in the context of talking about the information that could be gathered from a physical system.

      In other words, the concept of talking about "information" in relativity and quantum mechanics began with talking about 'information' in the normal, everyday usage. As these scientific fields progressed, people wanted to be more clear about what that really meant in these contexts, and so they developed more specific distinctions of what they intended when they used the word.

      That's pretty much always how these "precise technical meanings" originate, with some guy trying to explain something using common ideas, the listener getting confused, and the speaker attempting to clarify by being more specific. These terms were not handed down on high from the Science God who knows how the universe actually works.

      So the fact that it's a scientific term doesn't give it absolute authority. You still have to ask what it means, and it still means something like 'information' in the proper sense. Information still implies an observer who can make use of the information, and it still bound up with consciousness.

    67. Re:Information by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Well it's important to note that your "precise mathematical definition" was not a concept that we started with and applied an unfortunate word to it. The "precise technical meaning" was an attempt to refine and nail down what 'information' meant in the context of talking about the information that could be gathered from a physical system.

      In other words, the concept of talking about "information" in relativity and quantum mechanics began with talking about 'information' in the normal, everyday usage. As these scientific fields progressed, people wanted to be more clear about what that really meant in these contexts, and so they developed more specific distinctions of what they intended when they used the word.

      That's pretty much always how these "precise technical meanings" originate, with some guy trying to explain something using common ideas, the listener getting confused, and the speaker attempting to clarify by being more specific. These terms were not handed down on high from the Science God who knows how the universe actually works.

      So the fact that it's a scientific term doesn't give it absolute authority. You still have to ask what it means, and it still means something like 'information' in the proper sense. Information still implies an observer who can make use of the information, and it still bound up with consciousness.

      I was in complete agreement until that last sentence. An 'observer' is anything which can be causally affected by the information; causing one observable difference in the state of an observer requires one bit of information to flow.

      There is no need for consciousness, unless you want to debate useless philosophical trivia like 'does the world cease to exist when I close my eyes?'. I don't, since it usually boils down to arguments about the definition of words like 'exist' and contributes nothing to the world but hot air.

    68. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, you are trying to say what is easier and what is more difficult without actually doing the work yourself? Isn't that like trying to review which tool is better for dismantling an engine without having ever opened the hood?

      Talking about how many difficulties one has to over come to come up with and/or use the concept of wavelength collapse asinine to anyone having actually applied it to problems where it makes a lot of things easier. Sticking to the tool analogy, you look like someone saying it is better to use a flat head screwdriver to turn a Phillips screw, because of some argument it is harder to make a Phillips screwdriver.

      Don't be surprised if people with hands on experience completely disregard you. It is nothing against being self-taught, but because what you did teach yourself is still rather distant from the actual nuts and bolts of quantum mechanics. Even if logic is the foundation of science, you still need to know all the premises and principles going into it, otherwise you are back to the days of philosophers assuming they can deduce reality without observation.

    69. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Talking about how many difficulties one has to over come to come up with and/or use the concept of wavelength collapse asinine to anyone having actually applied it to problems where it makes a lot of things easier. (...) what you did teach yourself is still rather distant from the actual nuts and bolts of quantum mechanics.

      And the fun thing about knowing the overall picture is reading an observation like the above and immediately associating it to those of pragmatic users of the easier Ptolemaic epicycles when confronted with the more difficult Copernican ones. So yeah, I don't doubt it makes things easier. But is it true, or at least "truer"?

      Beware the instrumentalist trap.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    70. Re:Information by nine-times · · Score: 1

      You're the one who brought consciousness into the conversation. My point was that, at least as far as I'm understanding it, talking about it in terms of "information" makes it no less about consciousness than the Copenhagen Interpretation. I may still be missing something, though.

    71. Re:Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to try to use a mathematical argument, you there to be demand for mathematical rigor. This isn't rigorous at all, or even detailed or reflective of algorithms used to actually calculate and describe quantum mechanical systems. You're just applying a thin veneer of formalism by evoking Solomonoff by name only, while still using the same hand waving argument that says almost nothing. And the pseudocode suggest either you are severely lacking in any actual background in quantum mechanics that would allow for justification of what is simpler (under any definition), or need some prescription strength coffee.

      It is like arguing with someone who says they are right because, "God says so." I'm not one to take issue with theological discussions in general and there is a lot to be learned from people with differing views, assuming they actually make an informative argument. But then there are those are clueless about what an actual argument is and fail to even imitate one. But people who go on and on about the significance of "the Apple" in the garden of Eden should maybe at least read Genesis first...

    72. Re:Information by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      You can either start with QM alone and not assume the collapse postulate because it's unneeded, then conclude: "Oh, this implies there's a multiverse out there. Interesting."

      But you can't conclude that, because it just isn't a valid conclusion. Absolutely nothing in QM implies the existence of a multiverse. Remember, QM itself is nothing more than a set of rules for predicting experiments. Various interpretations try to associate aspects of those rules with aspects of ontological reality, but that's a matter of those interpretations, not of QM itself. And many different interpretations are consistent with all available experimental evidence, so by definition QM cannot imply that any one of those interpretations is correct.

      For example: MW assumes that the wavefunction is a real physical object, and furthermore that it is a complete description of reality. The wavefunction is all there is. Those are fine assumptions to make, but they're still assumptions, not anything you concluded from experimental evidence. Other interpretations assume the wavefunction is a physical object, but is not a complete description (for example, pilot waves). There's more to reality than just the wavefunction. Still other interpretations assume the wavefunction is not a physical object, but rather a description of our knowledge of a particular systems (for example, time symmetric hidden variable theories). We can only make probabilistic predictions because our knowledge of the system is incomplete. The wavefunction changes discontinuously when you perform a measurement, not because the physical system changed discontinuously, but because you've just gotten new information about it.

      Again, all of these interpretation are consistent with all available evidence, and all of them can reproduce the predictions of QM. QM therefore does not implies any one of them.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    73. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      My, aren't we angry? Relax, man. Nothing in this conversation is going to change anything for anyone. I guess next we should start talking about Wolfgang Smith's anti-MWI, anti-Copenhagen, Catholic-Scholastic-Aristotelian-based interpretation of QM as describing the operations of form upon prime matter's pure potentiality so as to generate the first level of secondary matter. Also, God. Maybe that'll make you enjoy these unpretentious conversations more. :-)

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    74. Re:Information by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Again, all of these interpretation are consistent with all available evidence, and all of them can reproduce the predictions of QM. QM therefore does not implies any one of them.

      Fair enough. However, this can be said from any scientific theory that includes non-directly observable (by your sensory apparatus) entities. It isn't only the wavefunction that can be "unassumed" into becoming a useful formalism for practical calculation purposes but neither more nor less. You can do it to classical atoms, fields and molecules, up to and including the DNA, plus everything at the macroscopic scale that isn't a pure direct human experience. It's a philosophical position called Instrumentalism that certainly has its uses in times when the very meaning of those entities is under dispute, so it doesn't surprise that it gets adopted among so many QM physicists. The alternative of Realism, i.e. affirming the existence as is of those entities, is just... more interesting, I guess. And from what you summarize of the different positions it seems to me that MWI does indeed fit well into the position of baseline QM position. Everything else proposes that those entities aren't, or are but not quite, or almost are, or are in some other way than they seem to be etc., while MWI just takes things at face value and goes with them.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  10. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    That seems a little harsh on everyone from Canada, Mexico, Brazil etc.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  11. Heisenberg Compensators?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beam me up!

    1. Re:Heisenberg Compensators?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir! I know you are going to send me down! But sir I am afraid! I have never seen a female close hands! Only on pictures sir!

      ACTIVATE DOWN BEAMING TRANSMITTER

  12. Erwin Schrödinger by Dialecticus · · Score: 2

    Do you realize what this means?! We can finally make a cat that's dead or alive to an arbitrary percentage!

    1. Re:Erwin Schrödinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a cat that's both dead and alive in an arbitrary ratio.

    2. Re:Erwin Schrödinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [to Mills]
      William Somerset: Put the gun down.

      [throws down his own gun; to Somerset]
      David Mills: I saw you with a box. What was in the box?

      Erwin Schrödinger: Because I envy your normal life. It seems that envy is my sin.

      William Somerset: Put the gun down David.

      David Mills: No! What's in the box?

    3. Re:Erwin Schrödinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can we spin the cat round round, baby right round, like a record baby?

    4. Re:Erwin Schrödinger by alexo · · Score: 1

      A mostly dead cat is slightly alive.

  13. Oops, wrong link by amaurea · · Score: 3

    That was supposed to be "... but physicists are more mixed."

    1. Re:Oops, wrong link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      129% total, seems legit

    2. Re:Oops, wrong link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about links #2 and #3?

  14. Collapse of a website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think instead, I just witnessed in real time the catastrophic collapse of a website due to the famous "slashdot effect", first theorized circa 1997.

  15. Trivial kind of local collapse by Nightlight3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not the non-local collapse which some QM physicists (mystical school of thought) believe in. Everything in this experiment is local, the two superposed wave components which collapse into one are fully overlapped. Hence it is no more mysterious than your radio antenna collapsing superposed waves of thousands of radio stations striking it, into one component, that of a station you tuned in.

    The real controversy is about existence of non-local collapse i.e. when two components and detectors are "far apart" (at space like distance), so that detection by detector D1 (supposedly) instantly collapses the remote field component causing the remote detector D2 to fail to detect it. Most recent experiment claiming to demonstrate such phenomenon with photon on a beam splitter actually cheated (see discussion here). In that claim they basically tweaked the timings on two coincidence circuits well out of manufacturer's specs so that they could never trigger D1 and D2 simultaneously.

    Non-local collapse, which was never demonstrated empirically, does not follow from the Quantum Field Theory (discussion here) but is merely a hypothesis in the QM "measurement theory", which is the speculative, soft and fuzzy, part of the theory that has been debated among physicists, philosophers and mystics for nearly a century without getting anywhere so far.

    1. Re:Trivial kind of local collapse by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I was wondering about this, because it seemed that knowing whether a non-local collapse had occurred, or not, would allow for FTL information exchange.

    2. Re:Trivial kind of local collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. But how do you communicate that information? With another non-local collapse, which you can't tell has occurred without being informed of the fact?

      Quantum communication is hampered by the fact that, even when entangling individual particles, you don't get to choose the state in which they become entangled. It's like trying to communicate using matched tubes of marbles, where you can guarantee that the sequence of marbles is the same, but you don't get to choose the sequence, and you don't know what it is until someone starts pulling the marbles out.

    3. Re:Trivial kind of local collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cthugha seems to think a lot of things in your post are wrong.

    4. Re:Trivial kind of local collapse by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
      I don't quite understand what you are saying.

      I was saying that it felt like this work (until the GP explained otherwise) would have allowed one to provide a FTL single-shot notification. No round trip would be needed.

    5. Re:Trivial kind of local collapse by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The universe does not change or split, instead the experimenter is propelled into a nearby universe.

      Think of an experimenter in a rowboat, next to a large ship. If they reach out and push the ship, which one do you think is going to visibly move?

  16. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by pahles · · Score: 1

    Then call it US Football!

    --
    Sig?
  17. Doesn't solve the original problem by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    This is silly. Taking a measurement of the microwaves that passed through it doesn't change that it was modified by the measurement. They're just using the excuse that the microwaves weren't theres, and then ignoring the fact that the microwaves were changing the process themselves.

    The fact that the microwaves behaved differently is a direct result of their interaction with the wave function. Both were modified by the interaction.

    They still didn't measure quantum collapse without effecting it, they're just ignoring the effect. They used microwaves to directly measure it, but just ignore that the microwaves passed through it.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Doesn't solve the original problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read up on "weak measurements" before talking about what their experiment did and didn't do, as it is a rather specific and understood aspect of quantum mechanics that doesn't violate things like the uncertainty principle.

  18. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    As I'm in the UK, I'd prefer to call it American-style HandEgg. Football is a game played using a (round) ball and predominately using your feet.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  19. Roll for SAN by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    You know in games like Call of Cthulu, or more germane, games like Delta Green or Cthulutech, where doing research into 'extra dimensional science' or whatever other terms they use to describe the eldritch magics and alien geometries, drives the researchers insane?

    That's what quantum physics is like.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  20. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! A brit with some wit. You sir, are a credit to your island race. Say hi to the queen for me.

    P.S. Ties in the unAmerican football are poorly solved. Take notice that in American football it is called SUDDEN DEATH! while in unAmerican football it is called kickball, and without surprise, the only time unAmerican football is more exciting than, say, American baseball, though only or a triffle few seconds. But it may be the only score in an otherwise very long sit, so something to go to the pub and fight about later. Fights by the fans against the other fans? No wonder there were two world wars started over there.

    Cricket. Now there is a sport no one anywhere understands. Maybe the cast of Monty Python (excluding that Americam).

  21. Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - a video! by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

    A quote from the comments (saves time):

    jon manock 1 week ago
    "this video is extremely misleading. the electron does not know it is being observed and decide to behave like a particle.
    it is the electron interacting with the test equipment that collapses the wave function. consciousness has nothing to do with it."

  22. Mistake by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    You can not tell the difference between particles that are in a superposition of states and those that have "collapsed". If such a difference could be discerned then entangled pairs could be used for faster-than-light communication by modulating their "collapsedness". These guys are not dealing with particles but a somewhat larger system. Is it an example of macroscopic system exhibiting quantum behavior? If so, does it offer a non-magical explanation of the phenomena?

    1. Re:Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia article on the topic kind of sucks, even though it is one of the most important developments in quantum mechanics in the last couple decades. But even if it were perfect, there would be too many people stubborn about massively incomplete bits and pieces of quantum mechanics they did pick up to acknowledge it.

  23. Yves Couder by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Are you familiar with the work of Yves Couder? Macroscopic Newtonian systems exhibiting features of quantum behavior. All this voodoo is probably just a lack of understanding.

    1. Re:Yves Couder by Nightlight3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have seen that. The wave aspects of QM are not mysterious since some fluids can satisfy similar differential equations (there was a fluid dynamics formulation of QM in 1920s, Madelung's QM).

      The strange predictions of non-local behaviors arise only from the QM Measurement Theory (QM-MT; it dates to 1920s Dirac, Heisenberg, von Neumann) which includes postulate about non-local state collapse of composite system.

      The Quantum Electrodynamics has its own, newer and rigorously derived measurement theory (QED-MT) developed by Glauber in 1965 which doesn't postulate such remote field collapse, but only non-controversial local collapse, while deriving from QED dynamical equations the behavior of the composite system measurement. That theory doesn't predict non-local behaviors since all dynamics is described via local differential equations, which in Heisenberg picture look just like Maxwell equations, except that operators (matrices) not scalars are field variables. The Quantum Optics is based on QED-MT since it agrees better with what they observe. See this post and discussion explaining the difference between the QM-MT and QED-MT.

  24. PIcs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or it didn't happen

  25. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    I'll let you in on a secret - Cricket isn't real: we just make that up to confuse non-brits.

    And, since when did we start the world wars? I'm pretty sure it was Germany that did that as we only start wars with France (or places with lots of oil).

    By the way, queenie says "Hello" back to you.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  26. Re: BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    I play football with a ball shape like a foot, you know, the football.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  27. Re: BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    That's ironic, my foot is shaped like an american football.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  28. Awesome or BS? by almitydave · · Score: 1

    I couldn't figure out if this was awesome or total BS until I RTFA.

    --
    my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
    I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  29. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google says a ball is a "a solid or hollow sphere or ovoid, esp. one that is kicked, thrown, or hit in a game." American footballs are indeed kicked, and they are spheroid. Why not change your football's name to "head sphere" since when I watch, it seems you guys bounce that sphere from your heads more often than with your foot, and in fact the foot seems to be the least used part of the bady for moving that sphere (except the hand of course).

  30. That's not correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In no way do you need a conscious observer. That's what woo and people misudnerstanding what observation think it is. All it means at the absic level is that there is an interraction to a measured system by a quanta. "This is very strange, for example why is a concious observer necessary?" because it isn't. The shroedinger cat was a way Erwin wanted to show how you can itnerpretation on the macroscopic level and push it to the absurd (crank it up to 11). Asd for the Many world interpretation you bungled it out. The MWI is that in OUR universe the wave function collapsed to A, but in another it collapsed to B. There is NO communication between universe. It just happens that this was how the measurement turned out in our universe.

  31. Re:BUT WHAT OF CTE ?? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    Okay, I'll start calling soccer "head sphere" if you start calling american football "hand ovoid".

    Also, why are toilets called "rest rooms"? I prefer to call them "thinking rooms" as it's where a lot of people come up with good thoughts.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  32. Argument by doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a fallacy, not a physic argument. MW violate other physic principle anyway. Like parity.

    1. Re:Argument by doubt by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      That's a fallacy, not a physic argument.

      That's a philosophical argument, one based on reductionism. Reductionism is no more provable physically than mathematics, logics or Occam's razor, but try doing science without any of them and I'll be pretty certain that you won't get far.

      MW violate other physic principle anyway. Like parity.

      I've replied to another post saying the same in this thread. But even if that's the case, it still violates much less pretty settled stuff than Copenhagen, and as such remains a superior, as in "Occam-simpler", alternative.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  33. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is GREAT! I have always wanted to see the "Collapse of a Quantum Wavefunction".

  34. That is a straw-man by amaurea · · Score: 1

    Lubos Motl is in this case arguing against a straw man. He starts by assuming you have an electron in a superposition of two states, and then goes on to prove that the expectation value of observing it in both states at the same time is zero. Nothing is controversial about that, and because interpretations of quantum mechanics are mathematically equivalent, they all predict that.

    Many worlds has two ingredients: 1. Superpositions, which is a basic building block of quantum mechanics, and 2. not treating observers specially, not exempting them from entering into superpositions themselves.

    The many worlds interpretation of his proof, where he valiantly destroys his straw-man, would say that after measuring the spin of the electron, the observer would be in an entangled superposition with the electron. Just like the electron is in a superposition of having spin up and down, the observer would enter a superposition of having observed spin up and having observed spin down. And because this is an entangled superposition, each version of the observer would keep getting the same result if he repeats his experiment. They would both see only a single spin no matter how many times the observe it - the probability each to observe two different spins is zero. This is the probability Motl computed in his straw-man proof. Ans it is perfectly consistent with many-worlds, and with any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since the only are interpretations, after all. The physics is in the math, which they all have in common.