Wave function collapse demystified

I am not stating Philosophy is not important. It is very important as it can determine the direction one chooses to head when proceeding with theory-making. The Philosophy of Physics is indeed an important undertaking. One should go about it in a systematic way, however.

You are proceeding with a philosophical discourse and are doing so by making statements without qualifying them with arguments as to how you arrived at your position. You seem to be stating a position then referring to Eastern mystical traditions as a means to justify that position(correct me if I am wrong.) Nobody can really discuss the validity of your position(s) without considering the arguments and reasoning you used to form them. The validity or relevance of a conclusion is not established by examining the conclusion but by considering the merits and validity of the premises used to infer a conclusion.

What are the premises and assumptions you are using to arrive at your position?

Hi Bubba,

My assertion is that modern physics has an unexamined metaphysical bias, which cannot be supported by any empirical findings. If my assertion is true, then it would mean that modern physics has already entered the realm of metaphysics, instead of sticking to empiricism, as a modern Science should, and claims to do. In modern physics, it is thought that mind stands apart from the material reality which it tries to model. Thus we think that one day, we will derive the 'theory of everything'.

However, in QM, irrespective of which interpretation one favours, the findings are not controversial, since they are there for anyone to see. In the double slit experiment, it can seen by anyone that the state of knowledge of the experimenter is entangled with how "elementary particles" *behave*. This is not in dispute. However, it is seen as a great mystery, a paradox even. We even ask ourselves how Nature can be so strange.

The Eastern source that I quoted says, in part, "Nothing perceived is independent of perception". In other words, all we can empirically verify is that whatever is seen, is see via the agency of consciousness. We cannot say that there is something 'out there', *outside of sentience*. We have no empirical basis to say that the material reality exists apart from consciousness. If we wish to say that the material reality does in fact exist apart from consciousness, then we have left empiricism/science and have entered metaphysics. There is no basis to say this. If there is, what is it? Could you or anyone else state what this basis is?

We have brought along an unconscious metaphysical bias in our scientific endeavours and we have seen in QM, that Nature says 'No!, here your bias is exposed.' Mind and matter cannot be ultimately separated... this is a key finding in QM that we have been perplexed by.

I am not proposing an Idealism, but a non-dualism... that is, it is not cogent to think that mind and matter are separable. What are the implications? This we have to sort out yet, and an instrumentalist approach will not be enough, as that is what made the metaphysical bias unthought and thus unconscious.

This is a very exciting time in the West... a whole new paradigm, a new way of envisioning/thinking about self/world is about to be born. Our conceptions of the human condition will change a lot too... that process is now underway. Thanks.

Physics does not hold a bias, people do. Every thinking individual holds a metaphysical bias of some kind. Most follow a general theme but there are probably few that are exactly alike.

Regarding QM, current theory does not concieve of electrons or photons to be particles or waves. This only was an issue back in the 20's when there were only two or three formulations of the subject. The wave-particle paradox is not an issue in QFT. An electron represents a quantized energy fluctuation in a quantized field which permeates all of spacetime. The 'thing' that we associate with a discreet particle simply corresponds to a ground-state energy of such a field fluctuation -- the rest mass-energy of an electron. Such fluctuations are propagated as waves in the field.

Likewise, the quantum field associated with the classical electromagnetic field is also quantized and a photon represents a quantized energy fluctuation in the field. These two fields, along with the vacuum field, interact and gives the impression of electromagnetic forces. The same applies for other classes of particles as well. Each has it's own field and fields interact, particles don't.

In the double-slit, neither a particle nor a wave belonging to an electron is going through the slits. The only thing going through the slit is a propagation of the fluctuation. The field permeates all of space and the energy fluctuations of the field we associate with the electron is the reason for the behavior. The 'electron' field contains many fluctuations but they belong to the same field.

That's the world according to QFT, at least.

Hi Anonymous,

Your description contains a lot of concepts we have invented and utilized to frame something empirically found. This conceptual ballast is constructed after the observation to try to frame what is observed. If not waves and particles, then fields and vacuum etc.

What exactly is observed? We aim tiny pulses of light at the double slit apparatus and *depending* upon whether or not the experimenter can have certain information, one or the another distribution pattern is seen on the photographic plate. We have done controlled experiments to rule out potential mechanical explanations, but the behaviour persists. This is what is "paradoxical". Even Feynman wrote "This is the only mystery."

I ask a very specific question: Would you agree that it is empirically established that the state of knowledge of the experimenter is correlated/entangled with what ends up occurring on the photographic plate?

.

No, I would not aggree that it is emperically established. Such an interpretation cannot be emperically established. If it was, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing whether it has been emeprically established. I have already laid out the reasons why I do not hold such an intepreation in my earlier posts.

also,

I think what you are asking is, "If I did not observe the pattern on the plate, would it be there anyways, in a real physical sense?"

My answer to that is yes. We have set up the apparatus so that the source interacts with a target.

Please don't bring up Shcrodingers cat. My answer will be the same.

You said, "If I did not observe the pattern on the plate, would it be there anyways, in a real physical sense?" My answer to that is yes. We have set up the apparatus so that the source interacts with a target."

I agree with you on this one. I am not advocating solipcism.

Nice talking to you.

What is your intepretation?

Interpretation of what? I'm sorry, I don't know what exactly you are asking. Please be more specific.

Thanks,

Pankaj

Your interpretaion of QM in regards to Wave Function collapse(or lack thereof.)

It signifies the end of the Cartesian, Newtonian, Kantian Worldview. If we had not needed a formalism such as wave function collapse, then the former three would still apply. It might take a while to let this sink in... but the implications I think would take us towards something like Buddhism. it will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the context of the modern Western culture. Good things are ahead... the self-created prison is destroyed.

This is a good read... http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm

"Western interest in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism, historically coincided with the rise of modern science and the corresponding perceived decline of religious orthodoxy in the West. Put simply: Modern science initiated a deep spiritual crisis that led to an unfortunate split between faith and reason--a split yet to be reconciled. Buddhism was seen as an "alternative altar," a bridge that could reunite the estranged worlds of matter and spirit. Thus, to a large extent Buddhism's flowering in the West during the last century came about to satisfy post-Darwinian needs to have religious beliefs grounded in new scientific truth."

Hi Bubba,

You might want to join the discussion here...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/

"One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics." - This is a blog post on the NPR website written by Adam Frank, Astrophysicist, University of Rochester, and a writer for Discover Magazine.

Here's the direct link to the blog post itself... I should have put this web address in the above post.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/03/one_universe_too_many_string_t.html

This is from the top of this blog post, an excerpt from a comment written by H. Dieter Zeh

"Heisenberg's original hope that the quantum system was disturbed during the measurement is not tenable. Instead, various systems (the observed one, the apparatus, the observer, and the environment) get entangled."

"The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based." - Neils Bohr

"Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience." - Neils Bohr

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence." - Neils Bohr

Ontology is an idealization, phenomenology being all that is possible, as nothing perceived is independent of perception. We are looking for the impossible. Certainly we can derive mathematical relationships to represent the regularity apparent in the sensory display, but when we abstract the sensory display to be self-existent, independent of perception, then we have already entered metaphysics, but in our case entered not as a 'stance' consciously enacted, but unconsciously, forgetfully; thus we are left chasing our own tails. This will certainly lead to vexation and madness, as Buddha stated. This is the fruit of "instrumentalism" in Physics, along with of course technology, but that could also have been achieved without becoming lost.

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems." - Neils Bohr

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." - Neils Bohr

In deriving mathematical relationships to represent the regularity in the sensory display we have probed ever deeper and encountered the fact that the sensory display evolves via discontinuous change, a flickering which cannot be measured, except as statistical averages. Here too, we have constructed an ontology, but again without being mindful of epistemological issues. Once again, we have fallen into our abstractions and become further lost in chasing a non-existent, an impossible. Here too, there is the acquisition of technology, but also vexation and madness.

In the discontinuous change, we have seen what to us in our unmindful state are a catalogue of paradoxes. We are confronting the fact that our supposed ontological categories 'space', 'time', 'matter/energy' and 'motion' are but phenomena, and not self-existent apart from perception. But this is not at all an actual paradox. It is reality itself, which in our unmindfulness we had failed to recognize from the outset. We might now realize that in fact, we had fallen asleep to ourselves. If we can internalize this insight, then we may get back on the right track. Another mystery beckons, our mysterious self, the perceiver.

We have thought that the evolving sensory display changes according to its own internal dynamics, and this is correct, but an incomplete understanding. If we have realized that the sensory display does not exist apart from perception, then we may also realize that we ought to co-consider the discontinuous change of the sensory display as a self-movement (i.e. not supernatural) of perception. Either view held by itself is a symptom of unmindfulness, they are complementary and inseparable, non-dual. Because we have probed the sensory display with the attitude that it is self-existent we have seen what it is as a paradox. Once we abandon our dualistic stance for the non-dual, then we begin to turn towards another mystery, our unexamined self, the perceiver.

Our attitude then becomes, "Nothing perceived is independent of perception, and perception differs not from the perceiver." In order to extract ourselves from our predicament we will have to examine not just the sensory display, but also the perceiver, directly and not as an objective existent embedded in the evolving sensory display. Due to these insights, the internal path suggested by Buddhism and Yoga should be considered.

The beginning four stanzas of Patanjali's "Yoga Sutra" - 100 CE (My Translation)

1.1 Now, and exposition on Yoga.

1.2 The aim of Yoga is to induce a non-arising of sensory and cognitive qualia within one's own subjectivity.

1.3 Then, the perceiver is both subject and object, dual and non-dual, self-experience becoming self-evidently complete and absolute, noted as the absence of space, time and matter, self-experience going beyond these phenomenal measures.

1.4 Otherwise, there is an identification with what arises within pure subjectivity, an identification with phenomena, with space, time and matter.

This awakening to oneself is sometimes described by way of analogy or simile, but most times as a negation, "neti neti", meaning "it is not describable this way, nor that way". All attempts at description using concepts derived from the phenomenal, sensory display do not fit. One has passed beyond words, images and thoughts. One of the terms for this level of subjective self-experience is "Buddhi", and one who is situated here is known as a Buddha. "Manas" is the term for mind/subjectivity as it is usually experienced, that which was the starting point of the journey, while "Buddhi" is the term for the "farther shore".

The Yoga Sutra lists the preparations that should be undertaken before embarking upon the process of interiorization, including ethical precepts, intellectual and emotional preparation, interiorization techniques and advice on potential conundrums and potentially destabilizing experiences faced along the way. The only postures listed in the text are variations on the seated mediation pose. The proliferation of postures seen today is a very, very recent development, formulated so as to make Yoga accessible and to enable a gradual introduction to the deeper aspects of Yoga while persons accrue health benefits and calmness of mind.

I have always viewed the ''observer-dependancy'' in pretty much the way. Whether you are an electron, or a macroscopic observer, you essentially cut down on all the probabilities to reveal the most likely reality which will be observed. There is nothing special about our measurements, but are quintessentially just as important as quantum observation.

Hello Folks,

I've given this topic a lot of thought, so I figured I should weigh in. I gave a presentation at the 10th Frontiers in Fundamental Physics conference last Fall, about a common basis for non-locality and entropy, which focused on the role played by decoherence. I have to admit to incomplete knowledge of the subject, however. My proceedings paper here did not pass peer-review, but subsequent correspondence with H.D. Zeh, Erich Joos, and others, has given me a pretty clear notion of what was wrong with it (I will revise), and a clearer idea of what decoherence really means. I'll share what I'm fairly certain of here.

First off; the wavefunction does not collapse. The global wavefunction remains a unified and coherent entity which evolves according to Schrödinger's equation. However; its nature is essentially non-local. It is field-like, wave-like, and pervasive. When we introduce a local frame of reference; this reference frame is automatically identified with the material or particle-like nature, by virtue of its locality. Any local observer exists in contrast with the non-local reference frame of the global wavefunction, and induces (or observes) components of that wavefunction to decouple whenever there is an interaction or observation taking place.

Non-local components of the wavefunction that had been global become associated with one or another discrete or observable entity. In the process; what happens is exactly as Dieter says - "various systems (the observed one, the apparatus, the observer, and the environment) get entangled." In Bell's and GHZ experiments, sequential weak measurements are made that effectively break off one component at a time, so that wavefunction components of the particle under study (corresponding to energetic degrees of freedom) are transferred from that entity to the measurement apparatus (until all the degrees of freedom are linked to it). Thus; components preserving the entanglement of one particle with its distant counterpart become dedicated instead to entangling the particle with the measurement system.

So; there is no collapse as such. There is always an evolving wavefunction. But wavefunction components which had been associated with one system become linked with another, leaving the two systems entangled. One of the chief observations of decoherence theory, therefore, is that there are no isolated systems. Instead, entanglement is universal, and the manner in which various sub-systems are entangled evolves over time.

I shall have lots more comments on this topic, especially if someone responds to these. I want to talk about the observer's role as participant. I just skimmed professor Leiter's Journal of Cosmology paper and feel that it bears some commentary relating to this subject - especially as it seems to offer some confirmation of my non-locality and entropy linkage. I thought the new paper explained his ideas much more lucidly than his FQXi contest essay, and I commend him on his clarity.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I have read a lot about the "action at a distance" problem of quantum mechanics -- it was mentioned in Craig Callender's article in the June issue of "Scintific American" magazine. Murray Gell-Mann, in his book "The Quark and the Jaguar" says that "action at adistance is just a misinterpretation of what quantum mechanics says. Any comments?