Thinking about the computer registering a detection; it can happen faster than human awareness. So it might be said that it registers "redundancy" of the wave function prior to "collapse ". Using the idea that "collapse" is when the physics model is updated (by the physicist) using the received information. I think there is some usefulness in separating the moment of inevitability of outcome ("redundancy")from the moment of receipt of transmitted information about it, ("collapse")- i.e. altering the description of the physics by the conscious receiver. Though it could all be automated and the computer could report the state that was detected but that report might not be immediately read. So maybe "collapse" could be said to be at the report making. I don't think the when of the moment of "collapse", (which just requires agreement by scientists) is as important as the difference between "redundancy" and 'collapse": being the difference between an unknown inevitable outcome of a singular state and a known or reported( by man or machine) outcome of a singular state. That is prior to and post receipt of information. whereas the "collapse" when argument, here, is about what receivers will be designated, by agreement, as switching the physics model that is applicable.

Never, it is I suppose my bet, though I am not sure what Bayesian prior estimate to put on it ;-) As I see it quantum mechanics is of a physical nature that will always fail to conform to the brain's processing of reality. We would need a quantum brain! I might amend never once in the future we have cyber-neural connection (brains becoming a major set of hubs on the internet) and with that we start connecting quantum computers to brains.

Would I prefer that people stop wasting time on quantum interpretations? No not really, and some of them are useful. Even Penrose's interpretation, which is related to the Montevideo interpretation, is useful in some ways. Also, the more people spend on quantum interpretations that takes competitors off the game of doing real physics.

Dear Georgina,

There must only be one real observable Universe. The question is whether reality is simple and self evident, or if reality is complex, elusive, and only scientifically verifiable. I have proven without a doubt that The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Your unrealistic considering of my truth being inappropriate does not alter it. It confirms it dear.

Joe Fisher, Realist

    In classical terms, the difference between "redundancy" and "collapse", as you put it, would be, I suppose, the same as the difference between probabilities and statistics, with the latter computed from accumulated datasets. It seems to me that the "accumulated datasets", whether from experiments we consider to be "quantum" or not, are very close to objective, indeed for most physicists such datasets would be taken to be objective, insofar as everyone would see the same numbers on the screen as they scrolled through a dataset. Indeed, a classical collection of datasets is only distinguishable from a quantum collection of datasets by paying close attention (to what joint probability distributions can be constructed, as a particular example).

    As you put it, only with provocations, putting the macroscopic numbers of degrees of freedom of "detectors" in the way of a prepared quantum state, does redundancy become collapse (although I think philosophers might phrase the same idea as potential becoming actual).

    Lawrence - a very good summary. In my view, many people aren't yet willing to take conceptual steps that were made necessary by QM almost a century ago. Genuinely new models of reality are still too easily dismissed as "new age nonsense". It's become almost a political divide, and obsolete concepts like "an independently existing physical reality" have become non-negotiable articles of faith.

    We'll know we're once again making progress when articles about QM aren't full of words like "bizarre", "weird", and "spooky".

    Joe, I made it perfectly clear that it is your inconsiderate tedious behaviour that is inappropriate.

    Why not add convincing arguments and research, and reconsideration of the replies you have given on your essay page, where it would be appropriate. Some suggestions: Surfaces are not one dimensional. I would be interested to know more about the infinite eye you mentioned and where the eyes of bacteria are located.

    Hi Peter,

    Redundancy is altered probability in Object reality, collapse could be used as a term to denote when the results ( maybe statistics) are considered, knowledge is updated and it is known that superposition no longer describes the situation; the physics model is swapped to accommodate the new information.

    Prior to provocation causing a definite deflection one way or the other the potential for both electron paths is relevant. At some stage swapping to the other path can not happen as it is committed to its path. it has gone too far and doesn't have the energy to swap. So the outcome is inevitable and the potential for either path is lost. Redundancy starts here, as we can say a superposition of the two behaviours necessary for either path is no longer applicable. That is even prior to detection of the outcome by the apparatus. At detection the singular state has been measured, confirmed, even though not yet communicated.That could be called redundancy confirmation. (Prior to observer awareness.)

    Dear Georgina,

    Simplicity cannot be simplified. Nature must have provided a reality that all creatures could be capable of dealing with. As all of the creatures I have seen have eyes, in order for all creatures to be able to deal with simple natural reality, it am not too outlandish to assume that germs, bacterium and viruses must have some sort of eyes.

    You will be pleased to know that my essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE am being reviewed by certified physicists.

    Peace,

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Joe my message was ambiguous. I intended to mean -put your comments on your essay page!

    Your reply to me is significantly different from one of your replies over on that page where you wrote : "A physical eye must be infinite in size and number. I know that every cell, germ and bacterium must have eyes because of natural consistency. A dimension am not linear."Joe Fisher.

    So if your point of view has changed it is important to update your page so that people can know what you think now.

    There is something wrong with using the behaviour of specially prepared particles as a model for particles that haven't undergone the same treatment; And arguing that the concept of independently existing reality must be retired to fit the findings. Right now I'm thinking its like having a machine prepare two balls one with spin and one with backspin but the observer has no way of knowing which is which because they look identical. They shoot out of the machine and whichever ball is tested first, by seeing how it deflects on impact, the other ball will act as if it has the opposite spin. We can not extrapolate from that and say all balls in motion can be modeled as a superposition of spins (forward and back), because they haven't had the spin imparting treatment.Also the balls with spin are not communicating with each other to ensure they 'choose' opposite spins at testing.

    Dear Georgina,

    There is no inconsistency in any of my essay, or in any of the answers I have given for its accuracy. Natural reality must be infinite in its singular visible physical state. Unfortunately, I have to use finite written English language to try to accurately describe that simple real infinite state, which am a logical impossibility. Popes and Scientists and mathematicians are in a worst position than I am. They have to try to explain why they would think that visible infinite surface could possibly have been preceded by a finite state of invisibility.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    The other way round is dubious too; saying that for any random electron tested the first time the outcome is random it must also be so for the members of a specially prepared pair. They are not alike because the correlation has been established at preparation. Though we can't know which outcome the individual partners will give they can only give one half of the possibilities each, unlike the randoms. The random electron's outcome will be a matter of how it happens to be behaving when it encounters the provocation of the experimental conditions. Like has to be compared with like. You can't scramble eggs in one bowl and use the mixture to make assumptions about how the unscrambled eggs in another bowl will respond to movement, or vice versa. I realize it may seem an unsophisticated argument, however I think it is preferable to ditching an independent reality.

    @ Hughes: Quantum mechanics is really strange in some ways. It is strange in that the wave mechanics results in odd behavior with respect to classical thinking. Essentially Bell's theorem tells us that if we have reality we do not have locality (have nonlocality) and if we have locality then we do not have reality.

    @Woodward: My point is that quantum mechanics should be taken as it is without invoking various ideology to make it somehow commensurate with our ordinary sense of reality. Qubism is an extreme ψ-epistemology that ties an interpretation to our conscious existence. At this point one might have to take some sort of pause. It is not so much that it is wrong, but as with all interpretation of QM it is not verifiable. Quantum interpretations are heuristics that have some utility in some problems, but largely the quest for the ultimate interpretation is probably a bit like the search for the holy grail --- it ain't there.

    LC

    • [deleted]

    • Post #35

    It bears remembrance that it was Einstein himself whom first suggested that there may be a hidden variable which would allow that two particles at a distance could both respond as if there is a rigid spacetime connection directly between the two. It is QM in its axiomatic regime of absolute seperateness of any events which makes 'entanglement' spooky. And rather than hidden, the correct question as to what variable might constantly relate across a distance should be; "what is it we are ignoring?".

    In efforts to obtain a unified field theory, when a 5th dimension has been inserted into GR on an ad hoc provisional basis, Mawell's equations emerge. And this strongly argues for Faraday's own observation that the orthogonal relationship of direction of field orientation to direction of motion observed consistently in electromagnetic field behavior, is the same as the abstract geometric relationship devised more than two millennia earlier by the school of Pythagoras, and that where there is a field there is spacetime and where there is spacetime there is a field operationally orthogonal.

    A dimension is that by which we construct a measure, whether it be the side of a box or the surface of a sphere. The 5th dimension might well be had as an obverse of SR where it is commonly taken that the time parameter advances from relative rest up to light velocity. As a scalar value the speed of time at light velocity could exist at comensurate light velocity when spatial extension of the field domain ceases to itself propogate further. And that the rigid, instantaneous, connection inherent to the flat geometry component in spacetime is evident only where there exists a maintained perfect alignment of spin orientations of a singlet pair (as consistently observed), and the limit of separation in an experiment is relativistic to the duration of preparation and production of the singlet pair creating its own gravitationally discrete domain in a topological measurement scheme.

      Anonymous, your proposed solution seems over complicated for the problem. A hidden variable is unnecessary, (so is superluminal communication). Entangled electrons are different from random electrons. The random electrons meeting Stern Gerlach apparatus for the first time act as if they have no state giving a prior preference for outcome. The "entangled" electrons with specific different states are not going to suddenly become ones without or switch to being the same as each other. Its like two bowlers, one throwing a ball with spin , one throwing a ball with backspin. Whichever is which the outcomes on impact are going to be related to the spin the ball was given. There won't be something strange happening with the momentum of the ball that causes it to change its motion from spin to back spin (or vice versa), or no spin, mid flight - risking a matching of outcomes. That is about conservation of energy.

      Lawrence, my point: Two errors of thinking; 1. Entangled electrons have properties that always give different outcomes on testing of the two partners therefore (error) any random electron must have the same property. 2. Any random electron tested the first time by a Stern Gerlach apparatus shows a fully random outcome therefore (error) any one of the entangled pair tested first will give a fully random outcome. In both of these assumptions like is not being compared with like as (it is highly likely) the behaviour of the entangled electrons are altered from that of the random un-entangled ones. It would also be a mistake to think that the property induced by provocation of the apparatus on a random electron is the same as for an entangled one. The former endures if retested with the same orientation but is lost with a different orientation, becoming random again, whereas the entangled electron seems to interact with all orientations not completely loosing its difference from its partner and becoming just like a random ordinary, entangled electron. Contrary to your "My point is that quantum mechanics should be taken as it is without invoking various ideology to make it somehow commensurate with our ordinary sense of reality. " I think it is very important to consider the foundations of the theory and question them - rather than just accept the mathematics and claim that reality must be dispensed with and/or non local superluminal communication is happening. See also my reply to Anonymous Jan. 31, 2017 @ 21:08 GMT

      Denoting the outcome of the test of the first partner of the entangled pair as fully random prior to testing is replacing the Object reality with human knowledge. It isn't possible to know which of the partners is the first tested. This step is put into the mathematics and the construct becomes about knowledge. Having done that, it doesn't seem right to say (on the basis of the mathematics) that there is no independent reality. In Object reality a ball with backspin will only give results consistent with its momentum and likewise a ball with spin. That idea can be extrapolated to other objects with opposite momenta. It is only lack of knowledge that makes the pre-test outcomes fully random.

      Re previous post, Feb. 1, 2017 @ 21:09 GMT: I should have said '....will only give results consistent with its momentum and angular momentum....' and 'That idea can be extrapolated to other objects with opposite angular momentum'.

      I think there's an independent reality. I only take issue with calling it a physical reality. The word 'physical' denotes nothing at this point. All we have are observations, i.e. facts of which we've become aware. And there's no one-to-one correspondence between these facts and the conceptual entities we call particles. In the case of entanglement, one fact might be about multiple particles.

      I believe there's an independently existing reality, because I believe there are other conscious beings, and that their experiences, their 'stories', continue even if mine ends. That belief is based entirely on faith, in the sense that I can't offer proof; but that faith isn't based on either science or religion.