Physics of the Observer Series

Re. "What Exists and What Happens: The Role of the Observer - Prof. Raphael Bousso:" Nice clear presentation, cute spider.

The Schrodinger's cat experiment is a red herring. A decayed and non decayed a particle are different from each other because the decayed particle has lost something and is therefore not an identical system to the un-decayed. It might be regarded as a different object because that change has happened. A shattered flask of poison is not the same as an intact flask of poison. The shards of glass are different objects from the intact flask object. It is not a matter of relative perspective. Likewise dead and alive cat. The live cat has functioning metabolism, the dead does not. Which is not a matter of relative perspective but intrinsic difference in state of being.Therefore the Schördinger's cat thought experiment does not provide an analogy of what is going on in quantum experiments because decayed and un-decayed can not coexist and nor can broken and unbroken, or dead and alive.

There needs to be two different notions of what happens, One is unseen change happening to an actualized system, the other is what is seen to have happened which is a construction utilizing information that has been received. It seems to me that overcomes a lot of puzzlement.

The Role of the Observer - Prof. Yasunori Nomura: Interesting discussion of two different kinds of "observer".

Re, the reference frame. What is seen to be in a reference frame has to be the product of information processing, from EM signal receipt. Without that process there isn't any visual knowledge. The reference frame is a construct not externally existing, but representing sources of the information obtained. The observer deemed to be moving obtains different information from the one deemed to be stationary and so the content of the constructed reference frames shows that.

The second part of the talk about quantum observers seems to be approaching a similar idea. The superposition representing possibilities but each observer constructing the outcome from the information uniquely received. Agreeing with the speaker; The multiverse representing possibilities (an observer might construct) prior to choice rather than physically real outcomes belonging to different universes.

Another multiverse can be considered as many unique individual constructs from the information uniquely obtained if there are multiple observers of the system under investigation. However in an experiment where interaction with the apparatus and or protocol causes the outcome, the result will be the same for all subsequent observers of the result. E.g. a spin up result will be spin up for all recipients of the information about the result.There is a similarity here with the Andromeda paradox. A distant material event that has occurred will be seen to have occurred when observers receive the signals transmitted from it. Between happening and awareness of it there is fate. What has already happened distantly can not be made to not have happened. A singular quantum measurement result is different from macroscopic observations involving many photons. For the macroscopic system different observers can receive different signal photons from which different constructs can be made. Consider an array of cameras surrounding a butterfly.

Re. Reliable observers in the multiverse - Prof. Sean Carroll. The talk begins considering Newtonian time as the time of the universe. It is sequential fitting our experience. There is discussion of why past and future seem different to us.

Newtonian time is not just sequential but also eternal time , the dwelling place of Newton's God, stretching from eternity to eternity, being always and everywhere. Such a consideration was necessary for Newton to fit with his faith but is it also necessary for modern physics? I'd say no, what matters is the sequential nature not stretching from eternity to eternity. If each actualized configuration of the universe is a time, and change of that configuration superseding the former is foundational passage of time, there is a clear and unambiguous difference between past existence and the future that has not and does not exist (an open future). With this kind of time the arrow of time does not need accounting for by entropy. There can be parts of the universe with increasing entropy and parts with decreasing entropy; Development and decomposition. Avoiding the theoretical, eventual cold, dark heat death of the universe that is inevitable with the entropy/ thermodynamic arrow of time.

The second half of the video is about observer's. Including the question of whether they can randomly fluctuate into existence. Sean Carroll says that quantum physics says that "if you are not looking at a system it "looks like" a wave. When you look at it it "looks like" a particle. He then relates that to space. To paraphrase, not looked at; just a wave configuration of the vacuum, "nothing happening". Looked at; there is a non zero probability of seeing things eg. "an observer, a brain, a galaxy".

That sounds to me like an incomplete model. The unidentified unseen wave configuration can be related to the 'data pool' of potential sensory information, which is not actual events happening or objects existing but signals with the potential to be converted to sensory information. But although nothing -discernible without looking- is happening within the potential sensory information, there are still happenings occurring between existent things that are the sources of 'encoded' events within the 'data pool'. Change is happening, foundational time is passing even when the observer is not receiving and processing information from (potential sensory information) signals.

Sean's discussion ends with talk about Boltzmann brains and the likelihood that most observers are products of random fluctuations. The kinds of things I regard as observers are organisms with functioning sensory systems, devices that are able to receive and process signals from the external environment into a 'sensory 'product, and sensitive materials that react to stimuli forming a product. With the exception of the sensitive materials, these seem too complex and too similar to be products of random fluctuations. Some silver nitrate could 'randomly' form due to particular circumstances but it us far from a thinking brain. It can produce a product due to 'light' exposure but can not itself analyze or be aware of it. Sensitive materials, 'sensing' devices and organisms sensory systems could be considered as a kind of spectrum of observers that can be ordered according to the complexity and completeness of observation they perform.

Physics of the Observer - Cosmology: Panel discussion with Prof. Sean Carroll, Prof. Yasunori Nomura and Prof. Raphael Bousso.

Lots of interesting discussion. About half way through Sean Carroll asks for someone to stand up for "real objective reality". The participants are reluctant. I'd like to do that by arguing that a singular term "the universe" is inadequate as a term for all that is objectively real. When Raphael Bousso is talking about the universe being (using an abstract simile) like the inside of a box (from the perspective of an observer inside) as the universe expands faster than light at the abstract boundary can travel to the observer. This is clearly about products of EM processing that can be made when EM signals are received, what EM can be received and the relation between the potential observer and EM radiation distributed in the external environment. Which I would argue is not all that exists, only a part of it.

In the appendix of my recent essay contest entry I provided a classification of universe terms in the appendix, which i think is helpful:

-Universe terms-

Object universe: uni-temporal pattern and substance of all existence, at all scales. All extant actualization.

Uni-temporal Now: temporal expression of the Object universe, extant pattern and substance.

Material universe: those parts of the Object universe that are fermion particle differentiated existence or matter constituted of fermion particles and phenomena occurring that involve matter as particles, materials, objects, structures, systems or media. The Material universe can be considered a subset of the content of the Object universe.

The 'Visible universe' and 'Observable universe', as used in this essay, pertain to the EM of the Data pool of the Object universe. The data pool can be considered a sub set of the content of the Object universe.

Visible universe: visible to human's part of EM spectrum that is arriving at and receivable on Earth or location of space based receivers, (from which images can be generated.)

Observable universe: Primarily EM of those parts of the EM spectrum arriving at and detectable by human device's that can be received on Earth or their space based location, (from which images can be generated.)

The 2 definitions above can be expanded to include EM that is receivable and recoverable by humankind at locations outside of our solar system, when we have receiving devices there. And the observable universe could be extended to include other kinds of signal arriving and detectable, such as from gravitational waves.

Image universe: astronomic observatory outputs from processing of received signals.

Visible, Observable and Image universe relate to our relation to EM signals, whether through sense of sight or utilizing telescope technology.

It may be that in order to unite ideas about the universe where appropriate and to differentiate ideas where that is necessary, a clear classification of different terms is needed rather than trying to use one word "universe " for everything.

Tell me what you think of this thought experiment:

How significant are our decisions? Are they meaningless, as in they are determined, and we are just objects set in motion with no control of our destiny. Or are the decisions we make ours and we are therefore in control of our own destiny? One such area in physics which might set light on this is quantum mechanics, and in particular the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment is an experiment, in which either electrons or photons are fired towards a two slit assembly, resulting in an interference pattern emerging. This experiment has been performed on all sorts of objects, such as molecules, atoms, and even carbon bucky balls. However the experiment has never been performed on living organisms. Imagine a scenario in which we take a small airborne bacteria, or even a non airborne bacteria and place it in a double slit experiment situation. This experiment would differ considerably in that the experiment is probing whether the decision of the microbe was quantum mechanical or not. The experiment works by placing microbes in a box with a two slit assembly one at a time on one side of the box, while on the other side of the two slit assembly there is a detector screen with food in order to attract the microbes over. Rather than being fired across the microbes will make the decision to travel towards the food on the detector screen. They will not be set in motion. It has been proven that single cellular organisms are capable of making basic decisions. One of these decisions is the ability to travel towards food molecules and they can in fact sense molecule gradients as small as one molecular per micron in a background of just 1000 molecules per cell volume. The first possible outcome of this experiment is that an interference pattern of these microbes forms, which suggests that our actual decisions are quantum mechanical, which is derived from the fact that the bacteria made the decision to travel through either one of the slits to a particular piece of food. This therefore means that if an interference pattern forms the decision of the microbe to travel to the detector screen was as a result of random wave function collapse and therefore effectively the bacteria under those circumstances were not making those decisions because the end result was just an emergence of the property of random wave function collapse. One could therefore draw the philosophical conclusion that our actions are therefore insignificant. However there is a second outcome, which is that no interference pattern forms, which tells us that our decisions are not quantum mechanical because the microbes, would in this scenario be able to evade random wave function collapse. In addition this experiment could shed light on the role of the observer in quantum mechanics, as to whether consciousness plays a role in wave function collapse. This might be implied if an interference pattern isn't formed because the microbe was able to observe itself and the wave function therefore collapsed. Although this experiment is not complete at this stage it is about the principle, and there are many questions left to solve such as how such a small interference pattern. The De Broglie( length of a bacteria traveling at 80km/h with a mass of 2e-17kg is 1.49e-9nm, and therefore does not have a large wavelength so the interference will be negligible. Another point which needs development is an exact experimental technique to carry this out, which is currently being worked on.

Hi John,

I don't think that there is actual superposition happening in double slit experiments, i.e. the particle used taking both paths until a result is obtained. Rather I think that the moving thing is accompanied by an undetectable disturbance which is able to pass through both slits, and cause a wave interference that then affects the path taken by the particle. Leading to an interference pattern if many individual particles are used.

1. An average bacterium is considerably larger than a particle, even a C60 Buckyball. Estimate: 50um to 750um :.1um(micrometer) is a millionth of a meter. Compared to a Buckyball C60 of 1.1nm 1nm (nanometer) is one billionth of a meter. I think that the imperceptible wave interference (that can affect a particle would likely be too small to affect the path taken by the bacterium. Relative scale is important.

2. You also mention airborne bacteria. The double slit experiments are conducted in an airless environment. How would you prevent air movements influencing the path of the bacteria? The bacteria will require a life supporting environment

John,

you are changing two aspects of the experiment in addition to change of test object (bacterium rather than particle). By changing the environment from a vacuum to air ( or maybe water) you are introducing the possibility of affects on the test object from that courser addition to the environment. Such as from Brownian motion, (movement due to bombardment by molecules not true motility) and from convection currents. The other change you are making is in the propulsion of the test object. No external propulsion of the bacteria unlike the particles."Rather than being fired across the microbes will make the decision to travel towards the food on the detector screen. They will not be set in motion."John. It will be very difficult to introduce them perfectly stationary. Making three changes at once makes it hard to say that the difference found isn't just due to the different methods.

Material Object Reality,
What do we mean by that? It is observer independent, ie. doesn't have to be sensed or measured to exist. So, it is not limited by being relative to an observer or few observers. It is the source of all relative perceptions or measurements of it via ‘sensory’ input processing (Whether inorganic device or organism observer).

What is meant here by an observer? Something that receives sensory stimulus input reflected or emitted by an existing object in Object reality, the external environment, and processes it into a measurement or observation product that can be called Image reality, or is an element of Image reality, and is different from the input. An observer as described here can be called (or contains) a reality interface. The observer has a viewpoint, its unique position and location, affecting what portion of the sensory stimuli in the environment can possibly be received.
An element of Object reality exists and has orientation and spatial relations to other existing things without these being necessarily known by an observer or measurement.
Here we come across a limitation of description.
A stick material object, for example, has a relative spatial separation, which my be unmeasured, from each object in proximity without the individual separations having an attributed length (the result of measurement with standard scale). This being so, it has a position within the pattern of all existing, without the need for the position to be defined within a co-ordinate system and without need for measurements. Measurements that would allow understanding and communication of a where it is. It, the stick, for example, also has spatially extended existence without its length being measured.
The relative context is needed first before, ‘measured or observed this way’ is decided.
Prior to measurement or observation It doesn’t have a singular (relative) state that has been isolated from the absolute existence, to be identified nor quantified.

Robert McEachern
Hi Robert prior to measurement or observation any existing thing doesn't have a singular relative state because the relationship with the measured or observed thing ,hasn't been established.

Georgina Woodward
By that logic, whenever something sneaks-up behind you, the "thing doesn't have a singular relative state because the relationship with the measured or observed thing ,hasn't been established."

However, the fact that a relative state "hasn't been established" by you, does not prevent such a state, from being established by something other than you.

Robert McEachern
Hi, state is an outcome of measurement or observation attributed to the observed not the prior condition of existing thing. The relative relationship of any observer can be considered giving potentially different verdicts on the state, not necessarily a relative outcome as obtained from me and it. That's relativity.

If the sneaking thing is macroscopic and very stealthy, i receive no sensory input from the environment that has come from the object . So i do not attribute a state to it. Someone else that is receiving sensory input attributes state of observed according to their viewpoint. For a singular relative measurement outcome of something there needs to be a 'when measured this way 'qualification.

Georgina Woodward

state is an outcome of measurement or observation attributed to the observed not the prior condition of existing thing.

A "measured" state and an "existence" state, are two very different things. Whenever there is no a priori "existence" state, there is nothing to ever be "measured", in the first place. At least in physics, the only reason to ever even attempt to establish a "measured" state, is to try to subsequently infer the nature of the "existence" state of the thing being measured, at the time of the measurement.

Georgina Woodward

So i do not attribute a state to it

Which may be entirely irrelevant to the question - "Does that thing exist?"

Robert McEachern
Existence does not require observation or measurement . It not an outcome or product. Being the source of sensory stimuli in the environment (if macroscopic) and possible participant in a 'measured this way' experiment if a particle. Upon measurement existence isn't coming into being, but is interacted with a particular way. A new measurement product is being formed that is relative to how the measurement is conducted.
An existing road has an extent even when unmeasured. Its length however, is an attribute that depends on how it is measured, Is it from the first intersection?, top of the feeding lane or bottom of it? , from the start or mid point of first name marker? When a measured this way decision has been made and measurement conducted, the relative attribute can be assigned.