Wave function collapse demystified

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT ENTANGLEMENT

If I understand the concept of entanglement correctly, it basically means that if you know the state of one thing (via an observation or a measurement) then you automatically know the state (without an observation or measurement) of some other thing. The two things therefore are entangled. For example, if you know for certain that the top card in a standard deck of cards is the six-of-diamonds; then you also know for certain that the bottom card in the deck is not the six-of-diamonds. The cards in a deck of cards are entangled. But that doesn't mean of necessity that there is any kind of communication between the entangled things, or in this case between the top and bottom card in the standard deck.

Many however suggest that until an observation is made, every position in any deck of cards is in a superposition-of-state such that each position in the deck, like top card and bottom card, are simultaneously and equally a mixture of all fifty-two possible card values. When an observation is actually made, the superposition-of-state collapses (or the wave-function of whatever that superposition-of-state represents collapses) and the deck position so observed resolves itself from a mixture of fifty-two to a reality of one (which then tells you what the other deck positions are not so there is an entanglement).

Einstein railed against entanglement on the grounds that the two (or more) entangled things must of communicated with each other because both things were in a superposition-of-state and only an observation or a measurement of one or the other thing would collapse their wave-function and negate their superposition-of-state and since that happen instantaneously, it violated Einstein's speed of light restriction. Einstein was not amused calling that "spooky action at a distance". However, IMHO, Einstein's big error may have to blindly accept that there even was such a thing as superposition-of-state. If there is no such thing as superposition-of-state then there is no such thing as collapse of the wave-function and thus there is no such thing as spooky action at a distance.

Let's look at a few examples.

1) Some Thoughts About Jane.

Say you are Jane's husband and you know that she eats the following for dinner, and only the following for dinner, on these days and only on these days.

Eggs on a Monday;

Lamb on a Tuesday;

Beef on a Wednesday;

Ham on a Thursday;

Fish on a Friday;

Poultry on a Saturday; and

Pasta on a Sunday:

But say you lose all track of time for one reason or another (drinking binge; coma; overseas trip, etc.). In your state of uncertainty, Jane's choice of dinner and what day of the week it is are both in a so-called superposition of state. An observation is necessary to collapse the wave function. If you observe your wife Jane eating fish, well you know it must be a Friday. If you happen to find out it's a Friday, then you know for certain what your wife Jane will have for dinner. Thus, there is an entanglement between your wife's choice of dinner and the day of the week, but there is no communication or spooky action at a distance between Jane or Jane's food and the day of the week. It would be like Jane or Jane's food trying to communicate with something immaterial since the days of the week are just human invention - an abstract mental construction or concept without substance or structure.

2) Some Thoughts About Twins.

Say you and your identical twin start out at some point X and walk in opposite directions. It's well known in the community that one of you always wears a green shirt and the other one of you (your twin) always wears a red shirt (in order to told apart by those you meet and greet). Prior to some third party meeting up with and greeting one or the other of you, were both of you wearing a superposition-of-shirts? Were both of your shirts both green AND red at the same time or were you (and your twin) just wearing either a red shirt OR a green shirt? It's nonsense to suggest that the third party meeting one or the other of you collapsed your superposition-of-shirt wave function and thus there was an instantaneous faster than light communication between your various shirts sorting out who was wearing what colour shirt.

3) Some Thoughts About Electrons

Now what's wrong with this scenario (apart from nothing I mean)? Two electrons in the same 'orbit' get ejected from their parent atom and one is tossed east and other is heaved west. Obviously they are in different quantum states and so one is spin-up and the other is spin-down and thus they are entangled. Light years later and apart, you measure the eastern one and find it is spin-up so you now instantaneously know the other western electron is spin-down, and indeed, the other electron, light years away, is indeed spin-down as verified nanoseconds later by someone else. But there was no communication between the two. There was no spooky action at a distance because it's not a case of the eastern electron being spin-up AND spin-down prior to your interference (observation or measurement) but from the beginning when it was tossed out it was going to be either spin-up OR spin-down (in this case spin-up) and ditto for the western electron - it was spin-down from the beginning quite independently of any observation or measurement.

One needs to ask the obvious question which is what actual observational evidence is there for a superposition-of-state? IMHO there can't be any since by definition apparently any actual observation or measurement destroys the very existence of a superposition-of-state: BOTH collapses into ONE. You only ever observe the ONE, not the BOTH. So, using the principle that's part and parcel of Occam's Razor, wouldn't it be just more straightforward to suggest that there is no such animal as a superposition-of-state and that the observer or the measurement is 100% irrelevant to any state of reality so occupied by two or more entangled things.

In conclusion, if you observe the state of X that might also tell you the state of Y but there doesn't have to be any communication between the two. And while there might be entanglement of sorts or to varying degrees, there is no spooky action at a distance. Those who argue to the contrary and adopt the standard model, well, IMHO never have so many waxed lyrical for so long about so little.

Hi John, I have just been watching Modern Physics at Stanford online lectures from Leonard Susskind on quantum entanglement. Early on he says words to the effect that the electron spin vector can be imagined pointing in any direction in space but the act of measurement between a magnetic field causes the observable of photon decay or no photon decay, corresponding to spin up and spin down. It can only be either of those two observations and nothing in-between, such as 90 degrees to the up /down axis. That means to me it is the act of measurement that creates the characteristic of spin up or spin down of the electron, it did not necessarily preexist the measurement. Though it is just as likely to have been up or down as any other orientation. He said, words to the effect, that the decay was akin to radioactive decay with a half life. He also mentioned that the strength of the magnetic field would increase the likelihood of decay being detected. So the stronger the field the more likely the electron will flip to spin up. I wonder how you might reconcile that with your description of entangled electrons. I haven't got very far yet with the lectures, just learning the necessary mathematical formalism before describing entanglement itself.

Greetings Georgina and thanks for the comments.

I selected the idea of the two electrons being emitted from the same orbit around the same atom based on the [Wolfgang] Pauli Exclusion Principle which states that no two electrons can occupy the same orbit if both are in the exact same quantum state. So, there has to be something equal but opposite about them if they aren't to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and share the same orbit. So, no matter how you slice and dice things, the two electrons will have differing quantum states, like one being spin-up and one being spin-down. So again, once you observe the state of one electron you know the state of the other electron without having to observe it even though the two electrons could be on opposite sides of the galaxy by the time the initial observation of one or the other is made. However, my key point is at no time can you consider each separate and apart electron as being in a superposition-of-state equivalent to both electrons, in this case, spin-up and spin-down, the superposition only being resolved when an observation of one or the other is made.

However, one can pick another example. The vacuum energy, the quantum jitters or quantum fluctuations, can create a matched pair of matter - antimatter particles, like an electron and a positron. These usually will within nanoseconds annihilate each other, turning back into the pure energy they briefly borrowed that briefly gave them substance. Recall matter and energy are just two sides of the same coin. However, if by chance they should go their separate ways and retain their particle status, well again, if you observe one as being the positron, then you know instantaneously without having to observe anything further that the other partner must be the electron, even if, again, they are a galaxy apart. The electron and the positron are entangled, but IMHO at no time were they in a superposition-of-state, that is each being both positron and electron at the same time until an observation was made which resolved the alleged AND into an exact OR.

You might be interested in some further readings in entanglement:

Aczel, Amir D.; Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics; John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.; 2002:

Clegg, Brian; The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon; St. Martin's Griffin, N.Y.; 2006:

Cheers,

John Prytz

You missed the main point of entanglement.

"In conclusion, if you observe the state of X that might also tell you the state of Y but there doesn't have to be any communication between the two."

After you observe the state of X, do you then conclude that the particle was always in the state of X? No. Quantum logic says that the state of the particle if fundamentally unknowable up until it is observed.

That is the dilemma of entanglement. The difference between information that we simply do not yet know, but could know and information that is fundamentally unknowable.

If I observe X I do conclude that it was always in the state of X and never in any superposition-of-state of both X and Y on the grounds that an observer is absolutely irrelevant to the state of X. Before observers (life forms) were ever conceived of in anyone's philosophy, the Universe got along quite nicely without any superposition-of-state or collapses of wave-functions, etc. of any of its bits and pieces. If you must have an observer, well perhaps you could nominate Mother Nature.

John Prytz

THE QUANTUM PERILS OF SCHRODINGER'S CAT

How can you have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time? Such was the question quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger posed in rebuttal to the weirdness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, an interpretation that he in fact through his theoretical research contributed to. He ultimately rebelled!

When debating the nature of quantum physics, you question what does it all really mean? One of the central points requiring pondering features a thought experiment by physicist Erwin Schrodinger. He, along with Albert Einstein, didn't agree with the idea that probabilities rule the quantum universe, and that observations or measurements were central to turning a probability into a certainty. By linking a quantum uncertainty event, with a macro outcome, Schrodinger hoped to show the absurdity of the former.

Schrodinger's Cat has got to be one of the strangest thought experiments ever conceived, but it was conceived with the idea of putting the boot into the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum. The Copenhagen Interpretation basically means that everything is in a state of probability until, and only until, an actual observation or measurement is made; then, and only then, probability morphs into reality and certainty. Prior to that observation or measurement, the various possibilities are said to be in a state of superposition. Translated, if you throw a dice and it rolls under the sofa out of sight, the top value of the dice is in a state of six superpositions. The top of the dice is at the same time simultaneously one, two, three, four, five and six. That superposition of state, that combination of all possibilities is called the wave function of, in this case, the dice. Only when you remove the sofa and look will the six probability superpositions collapse (the collapse of the wave function) into one actual value. The point is, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, prior to looking, the top face of the dice actually, in reality, has a value of one, two, three, four, five and six - simultaneously.

Okay, now back to the cat. The idea is that you have some unstable (radioactive) atom, and there's a 50/50 chance that it will go 'poof' and give off a decay particle within one hour. That's the quantum or micro bit. Now you have a box that contains a Geiger counter or some radioactive decay particle detector (that's part of the macro part). You also have a hammer in the box poised over a glass vial of poison gas (also part of the macro part). If the Geiger counter detects a decay particle, it triggers a switch which releases the hammer which smashes the vial, releasing the poison gas. Oh, there's also a cat in the box (the really essential macro part). After one hour, there's a 50/50 chance that the cat is either alive or dead. That's what rational people would say. Some, those of the Copenhagen Interpretation School, would argue that the cat exists in a dual state of both 50% aliveness and 50% deadness until such time as an observer looks into the box and measures the cat's 100% aliveness or 100% deadness. Then, and only then, does nature make up her mind (in quantum theory, the wave function - a measurement of probability - collapses to an exact value) and you find either a dead cat or an alive cat, which tells you whether or not the radioactive substance did, or did not, emit a radioactive decay particle. In a way, the cat itself serves as a sort of Geiger counter!

This thought experiment was to illustrate the apparent absurdity that in quantum theory some ultimate outcome can have before-the-fact equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (something can both be and not be at the same time - the upper dice face can be all six values at the same time) or that in quantum physics, there's no definite state of existence until there is a measurement or observation (same difference).

The idea is that if in the micro or quantum world something can have equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (again, an outcome can both be, and not be at the same time - wave-particle duality comes to immediate mind), yet the macro or classical world is made up of micro or quantum bits, then that suggests that macro objects (like a cat) can simultaneously exist in two mutually exclusive states or possibilities (the cat can both be, and not be, alive at the same time). In this case, the cat is both alive and dead until such time as someone looks!

Perhaps a better analogy is in showing how probability remains probability until an observation is made is in a hand of cards. All possibilities are equally probable, all possibilities are realised in actuality, but you don't know the specific outcome, your precise hand, until you look and the probability wave function, that superposition of all possible outcomes, collapses to one, and only one certainty. The observer is the be-all-and-end-all.

On that point, does it have to be a human that does the measuring or observing if all it takes is an observer to collapse the wave function in order for Mother Nature to decide either this or that? Could any observer do? I mean the cat itself is an observer! So if after only one minute a decay particle is given off, the cat will observe the results (hammer falling; vial breaking) just prior to dying, and there will be a dead cat in the box for the next 59 minutes. What if an insect crawled into the box and observed the cat. What about a bacterium in the box. Would nature, via the bacterium then decide that the cat is to be declared really dead and act accordingly? What if a computer, or some form of artificial intelligence or a robot did the observing? Of course it doesn't have to be a visual observation. I mean if you hear the cat meow, the cat is alive. If you smell the rotting corpse (or the poison gas), then obviously the cat is dead. If you feel the cat and it's moving, then it's obviously alive, and so on.

However, back in the macro world of the relatively very large, to me it's obvious that there's no bloody way from a human perspective of knowing after one hour if the cat is alive or dead without observing (via one sense or another). One thing the cat most certainly isn't is both alive and dead at the same time and I think it's absurd to suggest otherwise - yet that remains one valid interpretation of quantum physics. Is there a way of knowing, without peeking, whether or not that unstable (radioactive) atom emitted a decay particle?

I suggest replacing the vial of poison gas with nitro-glycerine, or for even greater effect, say a thermonuclear bomb (and leave the cat out of it). After the one hour is up (if not before), there will be no doubt, no need for debate, no need to even look, about whether there was, or was not, a radioactive decay particle emitted. There cannot be simultaneously both an intact and unexploded, and an exploded vial of nitro (or a thermonuclear bomb). It's either/or time.

What this thought experiment actually tells us about quantum physics remains a bit of a philosophical puzzlement to me I'm afraid, and the fact that it's discussed in nearly every book on quantum physics suggests that it has lost none of its strangeness.

There's another aspect to this that's equally as strange. Both the radioactive atom and the cat are entangled. What that means is that if you know the state of one, you know the state of the other. Say you observe the radioactive atom and note that it hasn't decayed; it hasn't gone 'poof', then you know, instantaneously, that the cat must be alive. If you note that the atom has gone 'poof', you know the cat is dead - instantaneously. Ditto, if you observe that the cat is alive, the atom didn't go 'poof'; if you find a dead cat, the atom did decay. Again, if you know one outcome, you know the other outcome - instantaneously. That's true even if the cat and the radioactive atom were on opposite sides of the observable universe. You have received a bit of information faster than the speed of light! When you think about it, information usually has to travel from a source (say from a computer screen or a flash of lightning or the sound of a gun going off) through to your senses hence to our brain. That takes a finite amount of time. It's not instantaneous. Because in an entangled situation you can receive information instantaneously - faster than light speed - Einstein was not at all amused. He's quoted entanglement as being a case of 'spooky action at a distance'. The more usual thought experiment is the creation of a matter-antimatter pair of particles that go their separate ways across the cosmos. Millions of years later, they are on opposite sides of the Universe. If someone ultimately observes one of the pair, then that observer instantaneously knows the state of the other particle even though that particle is so far away that it normally would take millions of years for that state-of-the-particle information to reach the observer: spooky action indeed.

Still, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of trying to pin down the specifics of quantum activities, all is probability, and things can both be and not be at the same time with equal probability, only becoming either/or when the observer struts her stuff and observes. [The observer can be an instrument, but ultimately that instrument transmits the observation to the human that operates the instrument.] But what if there is no observer? Would the cat remain in a limbo state for all eternity? Clearly that's not, and can not be, the case. The cat is either alive, or it is dead, and the observer be damned! The observer is irrelevant. There seems to be a philosophical if not an actual physical contradiction here. That was Schrodinger's point.

There is one other fly in this ointment. You have the cat-in-the-box experiment. After one hour an observer enters the room and looks into the box. The wave function collapses and as far as that observer is concerned, the cat is now dead, or alive. But now what about the state of the cat to people outside the room? As far as they are concerned, everything is still in a superposition of state. The cat is still in limbo. Extend that to people in another building, in another suburb, in another city, state, or country. Even if everybody on Earth knew the state of the cat after one hour, what about an astronaut on the Moon? Is the cat still in limbo because an extraterrestrial light years away hasn't received the news? As far as that extraterrestrial is concerned, the answer has to be 'yes', even though all Earthlings know that the state of the cat is no longer the subject of speculation.

Perhaps when all is said and done, quantum paradoxes, well weirdness anyway, explains the most popular interpretation of quantum physics. It's called the 'shut up and calculate' interpretation. In other words, just do the experiments; just crunch the numbers; just apply the technology, and don't worry about what it all means!

THE QUANTUM MESS: ARE OBSERVERS NECESSARY? The question quantum physicists dare not ask: what if there are no observers?

In my section on Schrodinger's cat, I noted how, according to some, it takes an observer to determine the fate of the animal, and until there is such an observation, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This thought experiment was an analogy for something in the quantum world that some outcome can have equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (i.e. - an outcome where you can have both being and not being simultaneously), at least until a measurement/observation is made and things fall into place as either being or not being. [There's an interesting variation on that cat thought experiment. Say the cat-in-the-box is in a room and I'm also in the room, and after one hour I peek in the box and determine the aliveness or deadness of the animal. But, say you are outside the room when I do that. As far as you are concerned, the cat's wave function hasn't collapsed and the cat is still dead-alive. So you have got to look too! But then what about a third party in another room in the house, then the neighbour next door, and hence other residents of the town, then state, hence country and then the entire world. Of course the cat would be in a limbo dead-alive state to extraterrestrials on another planet until they looked, and so on. In fact, taken to a logical extreme, nothing has reality until the entire Universe observes, which is again (IMHO), absurd seeing as how it could take billions of years for that cat observation to reach the farthest regions of the cosmos!]

In a similar way, there are those who argue that nothing is real unless that something is observed. For example, the Moon dissolves into quantum uncertainty, the Moon is and is not, if nobody is actually looking at the Moon! As soon as someone looks at the Moon, it solidifies back into physical reality. The absurdity (again IMHO) of that is that if the Moon faded away into quantum uncertainty that would play havoc with the tides and be noticed. Perhaps observing the tides is sufficient to give the Moon reality without actually observing the Moon!

Extrapolating, there are those who believe and would argue that the entire Universe exists (has reality) only because there are observers to observe or measure it. Clearly (unless you count God [if He/She/It exists at all] as an observer from Day One), the Universe was in a lifeless state and evolved in a lifeless state from Day One through several billions of years at least. That is, there were no observers at all. The Universe had to exist in a pre-observers stage in order to evolve the complexity required to produce observers. An early Universe consisting of only hydrogen, helium and radiation doesn't hack it as far as being a suitable environment for observers. So, in terms of this chicken-or-the-egg question, the Universe-or-the-observer question, the answer must clearly come down on the side of the Universe. The Universe can exist either with or without observers; observers exist only because there is a Universe.

Lastly, no one has defined exactly what constitutes an observer. What about an inorganic things like a Geiger counter or thermometer? Can it be anything that's alive like a plant or bacteria, or does it have to have a sophisticated nervous system (higher sensory capacity)? Maybe there has to be a complex brain within. Maybe an observer is only a bona-fide observer if it has intelligence, but what degree of intelligence? A one day old baby or someone who is brain damaged might look in the box and see Schrodinger's cat but has no capacity to understand what they are seeing. What about an artificial intelligence?

I conclude (or believe) that observers and measurements have bugger-all to do with reality, existence and how things work on either a macro or micro scale. The proof of that pudding, if any were necessary, is that radioactive substances decay with a measured half-life. The entire science of radioactive dating depends on this. And radioactive elements decay whether or not observers are present - they have; they do; they will.

Time entanglement thought experiments that link microscopic possibilities to a macroscopic event can be quite complex. Very often there is a confusion of microscopic possibilities or phase coherence and macroscopic realities. The cat thought experiment does show some short period of entanglement, but the cat's state largely represents a simple lack of knowledge about a realized event.

Observers are a mere convenient representation of an action, but actions happen and quantum states dephase in the universe all of the time without any observer present.

The paradox presumes first of all that quantum events are not realized until we observe them, which is not really quite true. The cat's state is then just like a quantum state and also not realized until we observe the cat. The paradox further presumes that the particle and cat states remain coherent with each other until we open the box. When we open the box and observe the cat's state, then and only then is its true state revealed. Thus the paradox: How can the cat have been both alive and dead?

Unfortunately, the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment thoroughly confuses entanglement of two coherent quantum possibilities, the particle states and the cat's fate, with the macroscopic and mostly incoherent reality of the cat. Although all actions are quantum events and all action therefore involves entanglement, after some very brief period after the quantum event, the cat is either alive or dead. That is a knowable state and there is not an entanglement of its possibilities.

In fact, the particle's state is also mostly knowable as well and it does not remain entangled for very long either. Quantum states are coherent with each other typically, but not always, a very brief period. The particle hits other particles and they hit back and soon, these subsequent actions dephase the quantum state.

The key question to answer is that: Once we observe the cat, can we then conclude that it had been in a dead state since the quantum event occurred? Of course. This information is therefore knowable and so our Cartesian local causality is fulfilled as far as the cat is concerned. There is only a very short period of entanglement of the cat with the quantum event and only during that very brief time is there entanglement.

Likewise, even the quantum particle is likely to dephase rather quickly and so we conclude the reality of the quantum uncertainty for the same reason. The particle states are subject to entanglement only during a short period. Once again, a soon as an event is knowable, it is no longer entangled and we just lack that knowledge of the event.

John,

you wrote "Extrapolating, there are those who believe and would argue that the entire Universe exists (has reality) only because there are observers to observe or measure it." Whether that point of view is correct depends upon what one is referring to when one says "the universe". If it means all that materially (essentially , fundamentally) exists, the Object universe, that is different from the visible universe, that I call the Image universe. The Image universe is a product of the receipt and processing of EM data giving an output that depicts what was together with temporal spread, and distortion due to such phenomena as gravitational lensing. It is a fabrication that relies upon observation, detection equipment, artistic interpretation of measurements and final observer visual senses. The beautifully coloured renderings of distant galactic dust clouds do not exist out there in space as they are seen. Material change will have occurred over the light years it has taken the data to reach the Earth. Image reality requires observers. Object reality, actualised objects consisting of atoms and fermion particles do not.

What happens upon observation is consideration of the object changes from all possible states in abstract phase space, that is not any singular iteration of the object universe, to consideration of the singular image reality produced from received EM data, when the observer looks or the measurement is taken. These are very different concepts even if they are given the same name such as the cat.

Inorganic devices and sensitive materials can be regarded as observers because they receive em data and convert it into an image reality output. Eg. EM data in ,ink on paper or screen image output.

Georgina,

That phrase "image reality" is a new one that I've never come across before. I assume 'image' refers to not only sight but sound, taste, smell and touch as well, since a blind person can't image you or any part of the Universe.

Actually I quite like the idea of Panpsychism which basically postulates that everything is an observer, even electrons and positrons; rocks and minerals; a can of this and a can of that, you name it, it's an observer. All things have consciousness and awareness of other things even if they don't have anything akin to eyesight. That makes a weird sort of sense since everything material must have gravity and if you have gravity you must 'observe' everything else that has gravity. So my two cats 'observe' each other because each has a mass and therefore gravity and thus attract each other even if they are in separate rooms and out of visual sight of each other. The same applies to two cans of food. You name it, it observes. Thus, the entire Universe has reality because everything is 'observing' everything else 24/7/52.

The interesting thing about that is that with everything observing everything else all the time, there can be no superposition-of-state and no probabilities and no collapse of any wave-function.

John Prytz

Yes, you are making progress...

"Here's a lesson in common sense, or more formally logic if you will - something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same place for however briefly a time that might be."

Now you finally have stated the essence of entanglement and of our quantum reality and it certainly is beyond our normal experience, but still within the subroutine of our reality. There are objects that can be in two places at once as matter waves.

Evolution only gives us the ability, a common sense as you say, for predictions of common action. Microscopic matter is simply beyond our normal experience. Good luck in your journey of pure common sense.

An object, like a photon, can be in two places at the same time as coherent matter waves and that superposition can persist for the time of the universe. We do not sense single photons directly, but do have equipment and technology that can. It is from these measurements that our quantum reality has emerged.

Most action of common experience, like cats and neural impulse waves, involve very short dephasing times, but simple microscopic actions, like photon matter waves, can persist as coherent with a source for very long times. We see the coherent cosmic microwave background source some 13.8 Byrs ago, or more properly a z = 1091, and another observer in a galaxy across the universe sees the same CMB source. Our reality is entangled with that observer when we see the same actions at the CMB source.

That is simply the way our universe works, our reality, or what you would say, the master gamer messed up this subroutine somehow for our reality. You explain anything you need to explain with a master gamer, but I choose to simply explain things with the reality that simply is the way it is.

As far as superposition of matter waves and what is commonly called wave function collapse, there are confusing and often conflicting different interpretations going around like viruses. This superposition of our intuitive and mathematical languages results in quantum interference and standing waves of discourse. The funny thing is that the quantum math works fine...it is only the interpretations and superposition of languages that gets entangled.

If you stand at a node of constructive interference, you believe that reality makes sense and all objects have only a local reality associated with the norms of time and matter. If you stand in an antinode of destructive interference, all reality seems to vanish and nothing seems to make sense since all objects seem to be everywhere at the same time. At a universal antinode, all objects in the universe seem to vanish in moment of destructive interference.

But common reality is only what we sense with the norms of time and matter and so the antinodes of quantum interference are just what we imagine and calculate with our mathematics and indirectly observe. Our intuition is very good for normal predictions where the norms of time and matter dominate. Our intuition tends to fail when we measure the interference of time and matter amplitudes and it is that quantum interference that is the root of our reality...or subroutine as you say.

It would seem to me like we had a very good master gamer after all...

John,

thanks for your reply. Image reality is a description I have been using for many years and though only too familiar to long time participants on this site it is probably unfamiliar outside of this little, tolerant enclave.

Image reality is as you reason the output of processing of any kind of stimulus. What is output is a reality that differs both from the source of the stimulus and the stimulus itself. Experiences are image realities that do not exist externally to the observer. The sensations red, bitter,and melodic do not exist externally they are outputs. The stimuli being just waves of energy or chemicals that do not in themselves possess the sensations they instigate.

I would not attribute consciousness to a can of food, though it can absorb and emit EM data, it as a mere object acts as a source of data not as an observer. An observer can see the EM emitted from the can and form an image reality from it. The can does not form an output that simulates the source of the em it received, unlike for example photographic film or sound recording apparatus or organism.

The point really is that a new definite reality that didn't previously exist is generated upon the act of observation. The output of processing of the data received. Prior to that we can't know what the reality is, a falling coin is neither just heads nor just tails because what it is will depend upon how it is falling and where and when it is caught and what happens subsequently prior to looking. IE does the observer just open his hand or does he flip his closed hand onto the back of his opposite hand, then releasing the coin, before looking. When the cat is observed the image reality of a live or dead cat is generated. Prior to that only the probabilities are knowable and so the state can be imagined to be, like the falling coin, in an indefinite limbo. I think it is necessary to accept that the quantum state in phase space is not a flesh and blood organism in space but is a representation of mathematical probabilities only associated with the flesh and blood creature.

Georgina,

I've been mulling over your 'image reality' ideas. Just a few points come to immediate mind.

What happens to the state of reality if there are no observers? You'd have to expect that the vast majority of the cosmos isn't being observed by anything that we normally define as having sensory apparatus like eyeballs and consciousness.

Now you might observe X and therefore it has 'visual reality' while someone else observes Y and therefore it has 'visual reality', except you aren't in a position to observe Y and the other guy isn't in a position to observe X, so are both X and Y real or are both unreal?

Since you place the accent on the word 'visual' you'd be aware that there are lots of optical (visual) illusions. In fact there are also tactile and auditory illusions too. An example of a tactile illusion is the phantom limb experience by someone who has had some part(s) of their body amputated (or weren't born with them in the first place). So what is the state or the status of the reality of an optical illusion in your worldview?

Which brings up the thorny issue that one should beware of the nature of your reality for what you see isn't always what you get. 100% of your reality is experienced, processed, and interpreted by your brain. That's where all of your reality ultimately lies and there doesn't have to be a one-to-one correspondence between what's out there and what's between your ears. Or, as I like to phrase it, you exist inside of the universe but equally real is the fact that the universe exists inside you (or at least inside of your brain).

The upshot of all of that is that if you're interested in the nature of reality, study the neurosciences as much as you do the physical sciences.

Oh, as to that can of food, the rationale is that if you attribute awareness to the elementary particles, then anything constructed out of those particles, like a can of food, must also have awareness or a consciousness.

John Prytz

Mr. Agnew,

Thanks for your detailed reply. Mine won't be quite as long.

Firstly, I wouldn't knock common sense. It has served mankind (person-kind?) extremely well for multi-thousands of years. You no doubt apply common sense again, and again, and again as you go through your daily routines.

But even more formal than common sense is logic, the sort taught in universities. One facet of formal logic says that one object cannot be in two places at the same time. I personally adopt that point of view and unless it can be experimentally proved, not just speculated on as a matter of it appears to explain something, that something being that one fundamental object can exist at Point A AND at Point B at the same time, well till then I shall adopt a sceptical view and adopt logic as well as the associated Occam's Razor philosophy and reject the 'one object in two places' dictate.

I'm well aware that quantum maths works extremely well, even better than extremely well - near perfectly. That's resulted in the gizmo's that have been produced based on quantum mechanics now responsible for a third of the world's economy. Thus, one quantum mantra is "don't worry about what quantum mechanics means, just shut up and calculate".

Fortunately, I'm in a position, or rather so inclined, to worry about what does it all mean. The philosophy of quantum physics is far more interesting to me than creating gizmo's based on quantum mechanics.

John Prytz

It is very interesting to look at the wavefunction collapse in the context of German idealism and what German idealists call intellectual intuition (intellektuelle Anschauung). I discuss that in my paper: http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

John, thank you.

Image reality is the output of sensory data processing. It does not require a conscious observer. Only an output that is qualitatively different from the input and source of the data. I have had to call it reality because most people regard what is seen as reality. It exists inside the Object reality much like a story in a book exists within our reality but is not synonymous with the reality existing outside of the book.

The Object reality cosmos does not require observers to exist, it is the space-time Image universe, that is generally called the visible universe would not exist without observers because it has to be fabricated from received EM data.

Each observer fabricates their own image reality. This allows relativity and non simultaneity of events as each observer is creating their image reality from the sensory data they receive at their location in space at that time (iteration of the Object universe.)

Optical illusions help to demonstrate that the reality observed is not the reality that exists independently of observation. The status of the Image reality is that of a virtual reality, in the case of the human observer the sensory system is the prime reality interface between the reality that exists independently of observation and the reality fabricated form the processing of received sensory data.

Perceived reality is not just the output of sensory data processing but a significant proportion of the output is generated internally by the brain itself. There is editing of extraneous data, data gap filling, interpretation and imagination. This becomes a problem when the output reality differs significantly from the external reality, such as in schizophrenia or an episode of psychotic illness.

Yes I agree that there is an overlap between physics and neuroscience because all experience including space-time experienced "reality" is fabricated by the mind from external sensory data and internal processing.

I don't attribute awareness to particles.Attachment #1: 4_RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE-FUNCTION REVISITED

For those of you who have absolute faith that something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same place (i.e. - in a superposition-of-state), here's an ultimate test of your faith and your nerve. In the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, the radioactive nucleus, unobserved, had a 50/50 chance of going poof within one hour. Thus, for the duration of that hour, the radioactive nucleus had a superposition-of-state of being both decayed and not decayed. The cat, whose fate depended upon that state of affairs was therefore in a superposition-of-state of being both dead and alive at the same time. Now no doubt you would have no problem standing next to the box that contained the radioactive nucleus and the cat (as well as the other apparatus designed to make this all work). After one hour you could have a look, collapse the respective wave-functions, and either find a poofed nucleus and a dead cat or an un-poofed nucleus and an alive cat. No problem (apart from the poor puss if she's now deceased).

Now substitute the cat with a thermonuclear bomb. If you seriously have faith in the BOTH this AND that state of affairs, then you must seriously believe that a thermonuclear bomb can be both exploded and not exploded at the same time until you peek. You would be very comfortable standing next to the box that contained the radioactive nucleus and the thermonuclear bomb(as well as the other apparatus designed to make this all work), as long as you didn't peek. Of course you might not be quite so comfortable lifting the lid on the box after the one hour had expired to check on the bomb's actual status, but you could arrange for a robot as a stand-in observer after that one hour had expired. The point is, you would be 100% comfortable standing next to that box for the duration of that one hour, absolutely confident that you'd be safe, since the bomb's wave-function was intact and hadn't collapsed.

Hands up all of you who would volunteer to stand next to that box for the duration!

SUPERPOSITION-OF-STATE

Here's the fundamental question. How did the cosmos manage to strut its stuff when it was all tied up in superposition-of-state knots and there were no observers yet thought of in anyone's philosophy to collapse wave-functions?

If there were however no actual superposition-of-states prior to the origin, evolution and eventual existence of observers, enabling the cosmos to strut its stuff, why should there literally be superposition-of-states in existence post the origin, evolution and existence of observers?

And if superposition-of states are not actual or literal but just abstractions of possibilities or probabilities held in the conscious minds of potential observers, then as far as the cosmos goes - and this is what really counts - it's all irrelevant, immaterial, of no consequence and collectively a total non-event.

Actually, John I had elsewhere on this forum suggested that an autopsy to ascertain the time of death can tell us whether the cat recently died when the box was opened or had died long ago. I am with you here.