Wave function collapse demystified

There are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. The three fundamental relationships of reference for perspective are the relationship of the dimensions of Cartesian coordinates with the dimensions of polar coordinates, the relationship of finite with the infinite, and the relationship of 'still' with motion (or constant motion with accelerated motion). Each of these three fundamental relationships are not, in-and-of themselves, a 'given' (that is, not an independent and necessary foundation of physics), but rather, the result of the 'overlapping', or exchange, of the designated parameters of the other two. And so, it is the relationships of fundamental references that define tiered perspective (that is, a perspective co-existing within an 'Other' overriding perspective) and perspective exchange (that is, consideration, or 'thought') as the foundation for all perception (physical observations and symbolic considerations). That is, there is no 'point' of origin, but instead, a relationship determines existence and experience through tiered interrelated combinations of fundamental references into perception ternaries. In other words, various tiers, or ternary combinations, of the constituent references of the three fundamental relationships represent all perspectives and perspective exchanges. The three fundamental relationships are not completely independent of each other, but rather, are interrelated and overlapping (like interacting 'whirlpools'), in one or two of the three constituent references comprising the involved respective perception ternaries. So, every 'object', number, and experience, every physical and mathematical observation and consideration, is represented by overlapping ternary combinations of the constituent references within the three fundamental relationships of reference. And the relationship of tiered combinations forms the perception ternary--the perceived, the perceiver, and the reference of measurement. The model/metaphor is a self-proving totality that is entirely perspective-based, and the necessitated foundation for existence that results from the tiered-ternary relationships of fundamental references, providing its own inter-exchanging context and its own reciprocating cause.

This presents a physics/mathematics continuum, or overlapping exchange, that is based upon the binary relationship of 'within' and 'without', representing the one-or-two-of-three of the constituent references in a perception ternary. That is, the overlapping of one, or the overlapping of two of the constituent references in the various constituent tiers, or ternary combinations, determines the relationship as 'without' or 'within', respectively. Thus, in physics (or 'without'--reference paired with perceived in perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three fundamental overlapping and interrelated concepts of distance, time/speed, and mass/acceleration; and in mathematics (or 'within'--the symbolic pairs the reference with the perceiver in the perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three overlapping and interrelated fundamental 'constants' which divide, or provide the exchange for, the three fundamental concepts of physics--namely, epsilon, pi, and phi (the golden ratio). That is, epsilon represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between distance and speed, pi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and rotational distance, and phi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and area (dimensional shift). Further, every 'physical' observation is symbolic in one-of-three of the perception ternary; and conversely, every 'mathematical' consideration is physical (more truly, of other tiered consideration) in one-of-three of its analogous perception ternary. So, mathematics, whether as numerical values, operations, or their corresponding geometry, is the result of tiered co-perception (or, tiered perspective and perspective exchange), just as with physics, with overlapping and exchanging references 'within' and 'without', so that each completes the other.

In this way, all values can therefore be defined completely only through the multiple and interrelated contexts (references) of tiered perspectives, thereby representing a 'number' (or perception ternary) not as an exact, or 'given', absolute, but rather in relation to another perception ternary which is separated by one-or-two of their constituent fundamental references--for instance, relating, as a perceived proportion, a fundamental concept like that of time or dimensions to distance. So, 'value' and 'path' (or, act of calculation) 'trade places' (exchange) and are defined in the same way that 'observer' and 'object' do in their physical correlation. That is, the 'constants' (constant only by co-perspective), pi, phi, and epsilon, as well as the exchanges between them, represented by the polar and Cartesian forms of complex numbers ('i'), frame the foundation for the mathematical correlate of perspective and perspective exchange. And, as with the three fundamental concepts of physics, these values are overlapping and interrelated.

Please visit the Zeno Physics web site.

This site investigates the mathematics/Physics boundary using Zeno's paradox on Achilles arrow as the entry point.

From a very basic beginning it proceeds to answer Smolin's Five problems that need to be addressed by any new theory of everything.Attachment #1: For_You.jpg

Here is an easy-to-read paper on Quantum Mechanics that a student wrote for a class on "Religion and Modern Culture": Reflective Essay. Although the topic is officially about religious beliefs, the article points out some very pertinent things that have been overlooked in Quantum Mechanics.

You can find a much more extensive presentation on similar themes at Intuitive Concepts in Quantum Mechanics.

into scientific expariment observer is consciousness itself

the process of observation follows:

experiment-eyes-mind elaboration-experience(observer)Attachment #1: INTERACTION_BETWEEN_SPACETIME_GRAVITY_AND_CONSCIOUSNESS__SORLI__2008.pdfAttachment #2: 6._Consciousness_As_A_Research_Tool_Into_Space_And_Time.pdf

"an aura of mystical speculation surrounding quantum mechanics and the role of consciousness."

I think the mystical interpretation sends a cold shiver down the spine of most skeptical scientists. For all intents and purposes Dieter Zeh and decoherence have resolved the measurement problem. I'm content to leave the ontology a mystery, but I think entropy may provide a reasonable explanation rather than the many worlds interpretation or the role of "consciousness".

"The role of the observer making an observation in quantum mechanics is the same as that of a classical observer making an observation of a system that may inhabit one of a number of possibilities. You look at it, and then you know what happened -- until you look at it, you don't know and can only assign probabilities to what may have happened."

"The weirdness of quantum mechanics is that the possibilities interfere with one another, whereas classically they don't."

Classically probabilities do interfere. For instance, in a system of Einstein solids the probability of the system's overall macrostate depends on the microstates of each individual solid. In fact, when they are combined the macrostate they form is overwhelmingly probable even for a small amount of energy and small number of oscillators. The probability distributions are wavelike Gaussians that do interfere with each other.

Dieter Zeh describes the Copenhagen interpretation as a non-interpretation. My belief is that the imaginary number in the exponential time evolution of the wavefunction

exp(iEt/hbar)is why it is considered a non-interpretation. However, I'm not convinced that the imaginary number belongs in the wavefunction's time dependent evolution.

I agree with Dieter Zeh that most of those who dislike QM or are confused by it believe that the probabilities represent incomplete knowledge. The incomplete knowledge is wrong quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic there are no hidden variables that will change it's probabilistic nature. However, I do not agree that, "Heisenberg's original hope that the quantum system was disturbed during the measurement is not tenable." I think entanglement and Heisenberg's original hope are perfectly compatible.

This is the problem, the cat is alive or dead when measured, but quantum tells us it is a superposition of both at the same time until measured.

In other words flip a coin and the possibilities are H or T and quantum says it is both heads and tails at the same time.

A possible solution is that what is observed after the collapse is the systems macrostate. For instance with three coins the possibilities are:

TTT = 0 Heads macrostate | probability 1/8 | multiplicity 1

TTH = 1 Heads macrostate | probability 3/8 | multiplicity 3

THH = 2 Heads macrostate | probability 3/8 | multiplicity 3

HHH = 3 Heads macrostate | probability 1/8 | multiplicity 1

If a measurement were to change the microstates, introducing one thousand coins into the system, then the overall macrostate is overwhelmingly likely to be a 1/2 heads macrostate and the no heads macrostate has a probability of 1/2^1000.

I used these concepts from entropy to give a possible alternative to the MWI and consciousness explanations for the collapse. I used the derangement from combinatorics to produce a real wavefunction time dependence as well as real probability amplitudes and eigenstates for any state |PSI>. I did not have to use the Hilbert space to get to the probability space i.e. without requiring the inner product first . Wavefunctions can still entangle and the exp(-a) dependence still "drops out" in a way analogous to using the complex conjugate during a "measurement". I would be interested in getting a physics beating by the experts or settle for their encouragement.Attachment #1: daerengD_Time_Paradigm.pdf

The Postulate: Until you look at it (the quantum or classical outcome), you don't know and can only assign probabilities to what may have happened. The weirdness of quantum mechanics is that the possibilities interfere with one another, whereas classically they don't.

I'm curious if others here would agree or disagree with this description, and how it might need to be amended or changed?

1. I would get specific and ask the question as: Where will the mass be when I observe it next?

2. Then I would say that the position of the mass will always be as given by quantum mechanics with interference taken into account. And this is true for both quantum and classical systems.

3. In quantum systems the wavelength of the mass is far greater than the physical dimensions of the mass and interference of the probabilities has an effect on the outcome.

4. In classical systems the wavelength of the mass is well within the dimensions of the mass and the probability of the outcome is not effected by interference.

Quantum mechanics covers it all.

The current mystical mechanics seems to be centered around the use of imaginary time. I would appreciate it if someone would explain how imaginary time is justified.

The measurement problem in physics is where it is implied that imaginary time is ordered:

(...[-itn,...,-it2,-it1,0,it1,it2,...,itn]...)

The mathematical axioms tell us that complex numbers can not be ordered.

Order Axioms:

1) A number can not be less than itself

2) x > y, x < y, or x = y

3) if x > 0 and y > 0, then xy > 0

4) if x < y, then for all z, x + z < z + y

5) if x < y, then for all z, xz < yz

set x = i and y = 2i and z= 2 + i

1) makes sense

2) i < 2i makes sense

3) a bit tricky:

0 = 0 + 0i and i = 0 +1i therefore i>0 and 2i>0

(i)(2i) > 0 ---> -2 > 0 FALSE!

4) 2 + 2i < 2 + 3i (complex # is of the form a + bi)

5) This is the key axiom!

xz = what exactly? xz or x*z (* is complex conjugate i*=-i)

If we distribute xz as we do for real numbers then axiom 5 is false. If we take the complex conjugate x*z then axiom 5 is true.

Quantum mechanics relies on C* algebra which is ordered. What is the big idea of C* algebra? C*C, multiply a complex number by a complex conjugate and you end up with a real ordered/countable number.

By the axioms of math the measurement problem should not exist in physics and neither should mystical mechanics.

As consciousness is a basic frequency of quanta of space and human nerve system can vibrate with it, consciousness can influence outcome of an experimentAttachment #1: 1_Indirect_and_Direct_Quantum_Information_and_Quantum_Energy_Transfer_Sorli__2009.pdf

WOW!! hows about a somewhat normal interpretation saying a probability wave is like finding a drop of water in a puddle. One goes to the puddle for the drop and knows he came to this puddle for a specific kind of drop but doesn't know exactly which drop he gets. He knows where in the puddle he got the drop the disturbances in the puddle ripple from the point. however the puddle is forever changed by his retrieval. One is not separate from an experiment One can only be part of an experiment

ps. hopefully my paper will be out for mid spring!!

The brain releases certain waves and vibrations (all of wich can be disrupted). Some can escape the the body and can affect things around it. If you were able to look at them, you would see that they have different frequencys. In any case, they are in fact energies that can affect things around it.

atomiton1 here is some scientific reasoning that debunks the pseudoscientific, "secret" and "law of attraction".

http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm

Brian, sweet. I read the paper. Now I can go into more detail: The paper although has Its problems in my eyes. Well they didnt think to cover all the possiblities. The most reasonable explanation I can think of is: the neurons in the brain must be temp. controled. when one is activated it would affect those around it. In a specific order (I stress specific) till it reaches the spine. sort of like binary code but alot more specific.

Complex is what i mean to say... anyway i believe that with all those nerves. You could probobly store new info in them. Heck i bet you could even decode them on a computer. Realy all youd have to do is intercept them from the top of the spine.

Part of the difficulty in comprehending the world of sub atomic particles and their behaviour, the structure and development of the universe and the fundamental forces, including gravity has been due to the failure to recognise the Prime reality interface.

Full comprehension of the Prime (subjective-objective) reality interface requires the coming together of biology and physics in the understanding of the subjective experience of reality that is created by the mind, and how this effects our comprehension of the physical material world external to the organism. Integrating a growing understanding of neuroscience with fields of physics that have been difficult to comprehend using physics and mathematics alone.

(The field of dynamical neuroscience relying as it does on the mathematics of chaos and complexity theory is most promising in this regard since it is the same maths that can be used to explain the physics of the formation of all matter and is thus a link between the external environment and internal environment of the organism.)

Science has developed from examination of the world via observation and experiment. This process is held up as the essential step that makes science objective and therefore superior to other forms of investigation and interpretation of the world. There has however been a failure to take account of information transfer from objective material reality and how the processing of that information renders it into subjective experience and comprehension, a subjective reality.

Observation always results in subjective reality outcome, which is distinct from the material physical reality that is under investigation. An observation does not have to be made by a living being to become subjective reality. The observation depends upon information being received. That information is not the objective material reality itself but is a link between the physical objective reality and the subjective reality formed from the information being received and then processed to allow comprehension. As soon as the information is detected or received a subjective reality is formed. According to this model, the subjective reality comes into existence only then but the material objective reality exists within 4D space whether an observation is made or not. However it can not be known directly, since in order to know it a subjective reality must be formed. The existence of the prime reality interface raises the possibility that the objective material universe is quite different from the subjective experience of it, due to the processing of inputs received. The objective material is not itself the experience of it. However contemplation of this is metaphysics rather than a matter that can be resolved by scientific modelling and investigation -from The prime Quaternion model.

If a global wave-function exists wich evolves in a strictly deterministic manner, this would be in my opinion in somewhat contrast to a certain assumption in traditional and modern darwinian evolution theory.

There it is widely accepted that consciousness and intelligence evolved due to dynamical, macroscopic selection effects wich "offered the opportunity" for an organism to extend its lifetime and reproduction chances with the help of internal "precognition".

This "extention" of the organism's lifetime with internal "precognition" is well-thought-out by the intuitiv insight that the more intelligence an organism has, the more it can predict certain circumstances in the future and avoid them or otherwise handle them.

According to Popper this organism can "simulate" certain circumstances in its consciousness, especially his own behaviour regarding certain future events, similar to a scientific experiment. One could label such an experiment as a "gedankenexperiment" ("thought experiment"). If the organism would act out this visualized behaviour in reality instead of simulating it, it would risk to fail and to die.

So according to Karl Popper in many cases of such a simulation the organism survives future events due to its ability to first simulate some events. If a simulation leads to a "negative" result, only the false assumptions of this simulation then could "die out" but not the organism(s) itself.

The sharp contrast from evolution theory to determinism for me is, that the operational explanation of consciousness is somewhat meaningless in a world that's strictly predetermined. Now one can argue that the evolution of consciousness and intelligence can not be enabled - untill a strict determinism is universal valid. The reason for this conclusion would be because local and causal physical dynamics can't precalculate its own future dynamics until a level of classical, stable macrocosmos appears in the quantum world (that macrocosmos makes brains possible to evolve). And this would surely presuppose universal entanglement and decoherence.

Would that mean that an intelligent organism has no free will? Because even though it seems that nature can simulate some of its own future dynamics (due to consciousness) - only at the macroscopic level! - it can't really chance this future? In this case (human) consciousness and intelligence is really an "epiphenomenon". But how are our very best scientific conclusions related to a strictly deterministic world, in other words, is it too "anthropic" to wonder about the ability of nature (with nature i mean especially quantum mechanics) to comprehend itself?

little, but perhaps important type-error in my previous post...:

should read: "... only at the macroscopic level! - it can't really change this future?" (instead of "chance").

Thanks to this very interesting forum!

Stefan W.

Important task of theoretical physics today is to free observer from his imprisonment into psychological time.

yours amritAttachment #1: TIME_IS_DERIVED_FROM_MOTION_Sorli_2009.pdf

Hey Stefan,

I'm a little slow when it comes to understanding the philosophical jargon so I'm not sure I get your big idea.

'There it is widely accepted that consciousness and intelligence evolved due to dynamical, macroscopic selection effects which 'offered the opportunity' for an organism to extend its lifetime and reproduction chances with the help of internal precognition."

Could this be retranslated as intelligence is a sexually selected trait [something similar to a peacock's tail (is this philosophy misogynistic?!)].

What are your thoughts on punctuated equilibrium? What do you think about climate change and its role in human evolution?

How is this tying into the wavefunction? Is PSI(x,t) = exp[(iEt/-h-)] the determinism you're referring to? What causes the wavefunction to collapse?

Amrit I can tell you are very persistent with your ideas which is admirable and I've read a lot of your attachments. Are you willing to share any explicit derivations so I can see it worked out step by step?