Author Topic: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment  (Read 10483 times)

Offline josephpalazzo (OP)

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2014, 08:53:02 AM »
I think you're going to confuse him with the use of the word "you" above.

Here is a thought experiment that may shed light on the situation.

Quote
Shimon Malin Phd. Professor Emeritus of Physics at Colgate University
"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."


Indeed, that's exactly why I wrote: I'm not a fan of the terminology "wave collapse". That has led to so many blind alleys, it should be called the biggest blunder ever.

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2014, 10:41:57 AM »
Well, on the upside, in the last few days I have learned more about quantum physics than I ever didn't want to know.

Offline josephpalazzo (OP)

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2014, 11:45:33 AM »
Well, on the upside, in the last few days I have learned more about quantum physics than I ever didn't want to know.
Wait til you get my bill... :madu:

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2014, 12:58:26 PM »


Indeed, that's exactly why I wrote: I'm not a fan of the terminology "wave collapse". That has led to so many blind alleys, it should be called the biggest blunder ever.

I think it's the words "observer" or "observation" that has caused so much nonsense. Casparov will never admit that these terms refer to instrumentation because his religion depends on it.
 New ageism is a religion and his views are faith based not science based to begin with. The faith came first. The unknowns in QM are just a convenient excuse new agers have glommed on to in order to insert a god of the gaps fallacy.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2014, 01:23:02 PM »
Or "MENTAL."  I already posted that the wave collapse is mental and not objective. And Casparov says no one else has given him evidence. He keeps using the old fallacy from ignorance, poisoning the well and he is therefore correct. He just likes to argue and use slick maneuvers that aren't logical just like any neurotic that has no clue what sound reasoning is.. JOSEPH HAS MORE PATIENCE THAN I HAVE WITH HIS DISHONESTY. It is fun using him as a chew toy, but  it is getting old.  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2014, 01:53:31 PM »
Casparov is desperately seeking an example from science where a high level system produces an effect (Mass Effect?), at a lower level that cannot occur without some new principle (mind)coming in at that level. Then he can extend that notion to the very top level, to heaven with a "MENTAL" God Himself acting down to control everything that happens below. This downward causation is just the Aristotelian "final cause," renamed because of the dispute that the term has suffered at the hands of the  scientific revolution.

He likes to use examples of the early universe, the collapse of the wave function, influence of the mind on the body, and influence of the mind on the world. Currently science has found no need to for a special principle (mind) to provide for the movement from simple to complex. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Casparov

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM »
Quote
Shimon Malin Phd. Professor Emeritus of Physics at Colgate University
"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."

Here is the thing:

Quote
The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough. - from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf

Shimon Malin does not understand that wave function collapse occurs as soon as there is merely "the presence of path information anywhere in the universe". Before anybody looks at the printed out paper or hears the bells, if the information is already present and available to conscious observers anywhere in the universe, the collapse takes place. So he is right in a sense that "no human interaction is necessary" but he is wrong if he concludes that "measuring devices cause the collapse". The which path information has to be available to conscious observers, being only available to measuring devices and then erased so that no conscious observers will ever have the possibility to obtain the information does not collapse the wave function.

JosephPalazzo, If you don't like the phrase, "cause wave collapse," then I will use, "prohibit the interference pattern."

I am confused as to what you guys think prohibits the interference pattern. It is undeniable that the cause is "the presence of which-path information in the universe" but what does this mean? That a measuring device can have this information? Or a conscious observer?

We can present a case:

P1) An "observation" prohibits the possibility of an interference pattern
P2) Obtaining or merely having access to available which-path information constitutes an "observation"
P3) Once an observation is made, the prohibition of the possibility of an interference pattern is permanent
P4) Measuring devices that record and then erase their which path information do not permanently prohibit interference patterns
C1) Per P3 and P4, measuring devices cannot be said to be making an "observation"

Premise 3 is the one you may call into question. Here is the explanation:

Once an Observation is made, it is permanent. If the which-path observation becomes available to a conscious observer (EVEN FOR A SECOND) it's too late. It's done. The interference pattern will be prohibited permanently and there is no way to get it to reappear after that. No matter what you do after an observation is made, the interference pattern wont come back EVER! Therefore, a True Observation PERMANENTLY prohibits the interference pattern.

However, If the which-path information becomes available to an unconscious measuring device, it can erase that which-path information LONG AFTER THE MEASUREMENT, and behold, the interference pattern reappears just as if no "observation" had been made. (this is because indeed no "observation" was made) Therefore, unconscious measuring devices do not make "Observations."

This should show that "which path information being available to an unconscious measuring device" does not itself prohibit the interference pattern, and therefore cannot be a true "observation".

What hangs you up is that a measuring device is required in order for any conscious observer to ever obtain the which-path information, you therefore argue that the measuring devices measurement is prohibiting the interference pattern, not the conscious observer. It is a well established fact that what prohibits the interference pattern is the ability to obtain which-path information. The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2014, 03:40:36 PM »
That is not true! Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2014, 06:11:37 PM »
Casparov, consider this.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for rocking our understanding of reality NOT being physical and materialistic.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong.
No scientist, in fact nobody at all, is up for a Nobel for proving even the remote possibility, scientifically speaking, that transcendental may be factual.
All we have is inconclusive data at best, no matter how you want to toss and interpret it, a handful (just so I don't say that you keep referring to one or two experiments) of experiments done, a scientific field that is still in its infancy; there is still a lot of research to be done, a lot to be discovered.

If I were you, honestly, I would get on with my life and try my luck at constructing a different world view until (more) evidence showed up.
But until then, I would have no reason to not regard our existence in a material universe as axiomatic.
And regardless of whether or not somebody presented me with a good reason to believe or not believe what you are currently hung up on, I would defer to, again, no physicist proving materialism is false is up for a Nobel.

Offline Casparov

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2014, 06:40:23 PM »
Casparov, consider this.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for rocking our understanding of reality NOT being physical and materialistic.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong.
No scientist, in fact nobody at all, is up for a Nobel for proving even the remote possibility, scientifically speaking, that transcendental may be factual.
All we have is inconclusive data at best, no matter how you want to toss and interpret it, a handful (just so I don't say that you keep referring to one or two experiments) of experiments done, a scientific field that is still in its infancy; there is still a lot of research to be done, a lot to be discovered.

If I were you, honestly, I would get on with my life and try my luck at constructing a different world view until (more) evidence showed up.
But until then, I would have no reason to not regard our existence in a material universe as axiomatic.
And regardless of whether or not somebody presented me with a good reason to believe or not believe what you are currently hung up on, I would defer to, again, no physicist proving materialism is false is up for a Nobel.

The reason why no Nobel Prize has been won for "proving that materialism is false" is because every aspect of Materialism that gets proven false, gets rationalized as "well Materialism is obviously true, so this only proves that Materialism doesn't have this aspect as we thought."

For instance: Materialism requires that Material objects exist independent of observations and obey the Principle of Causality and the Principle of Locality.

So we prove that these objects violate the Principle of Locality. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that the principle of locality is not a part of it like we thought."

So we prove that these objects violate the Principle of Causality. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that the principle of locality is not a part of it like we thought."

So we prove that these objects are not observation independent. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that at the quantum level it is not observation independent, but this doesn't mean the macro level is."

Materialism has been disproven since around 1925, and continues to be disproven over and over again. Yet, because it is such a deeply ingrained foundational belief that no one wants to give up, it is rationalized away some how. Scientist are NOT immune to this, in fact, they are probably the worst ones. Nearly every aspect of what Materialism means has been disproven in one way or another, and yet Materialist's best argument for why Materialism is still a good model is, as you say, "No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong." That's the best argument you've got.

So when I tell you, "Okay, if you want to entirely dismiss all of this evidence that contradicts Materialism then fine. Materialism is a positive claim about the nature of reality. So what is your positive argument for Materialism then? What is the evidence that allows Materialism to meet it's burden of proof as a positive assertion about the nature of reality?"

But you don't answer this question. You side step it. You avoid it. You look for reasons why you don't have to provide any proof or evidence. You complain that you don't have to, you argue that you have no burden of proof. (Special Pleading) Either that or you use Logical Fallacy. Appeal to Widespread Belief. Appeal to Authority. Appeal to Ignorance - assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false. Appeal to a False Dilemma - two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. (often that either Materialism is true or nothing makes sense and we live in a wacky wavy fun inflatable tube anything goes dream land.) Argumentum ad populum – where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be so. etc etc etc.

Bottom line is: You will not or cannot provide any positive evidence to support the assertion that Materialism is true. And you outright deny and dismiss the mounting pile of evidence which seems to directly contradict the assertion of Materialism. As someone who is skeptical of Materialism, what am I to do with this?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 06:52:11 PM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2014, 07:03:25 PM »
Casparov, I did not provide an answer to you because I would rather have those that know more than me do so.
So you are saying that the reason no such individual is up for a Nobel is, essentially, fanaticism, denial, if not outright a conspiracy of vast proportion. Does that honestly make intellectual sense to you? Stop and ask yourself if you honestly, genuinely believe that.
This is the exact same claim Creationists make, and the exact same reason they like to flaunt that crap movie called Expelled.
I hate to say this, but you have more in common with them than you care.

You are right, I do not have any burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your own conclusions and the way that you are reading into these experiments is in fact what the scientists themselves are proposing.
In the debate, you engage in weasel tactics and flip-flop between terms like hypothesis and scientific model. They are not the same.
There is no such thing as a scientific idealist model, or however you call it.
There is no consensus amongst scientists that materialism has been disproven.
There is nothing but you reading into these experiments, and while I do not have all the answers for you because I have not looked into them, what I have looked into clearly established that you in fact read wrong into both the conclusions, the findings and the purpose of the experiments. So why should I lose one moment of effort to discuss this further when some fundamental aspects and definitions are clearly misunderstood, which I will not repeat, that have been pointed out to you by others, and quite eloquently so?
You are welcome to hold whatever world view you wish. I am perfectly comfortable with that, even if it's wrong.

And there is no appeal to ignorance at play here unless you start with the premise that your own existence in a material universe is not axiomatic. Good luck with that.
There is also no argumentum ad populum commited in dismissing a claim due to a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary.

Again, you have absolutely no evidence or reason to doubt your own existence in a material universe before you even begin to delve into QM (and butcher it). To begin to investigate, you must first have reason to doubt. Tell me, what is your reason to doubt materialism from the get-go?

It is obvious that you are emotionally invested into the world  view you currently hold. It also gives you an excuse to look down on others. Until you voluntarily choose to take an objective view into what you believe and WHY you believe it, nothing we ever say will ever change your mind. But as it stands, your emotional investment prevents introspection, just like it does to religious people.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:07:26 PM by Shol'va »

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2014, 07:39:46 PM »
Casparov I am still unclear. If I accept your world view ... then what? What are the implications? In other words what is your world view selling that I should be buying?

Offline Casparov

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2014, 07:51:34 PM »
Casparov, I did not provide an answer to you because I would rather have those that know more than me do so.
So you are saying that the reason no such individual is up for a Nobel is, essentially, fanaticism, denial, if not outright a conspiracy of vast proportion. Does that honestly make intellectual sense to you? Stop and ask yourself if you honestly, genuinely believe that.
This is the exact same claim Creationists make, and the exact same reason they like to flaunt that crap movie called Expelled.
I hate to say this, but you have more in common with them than you care.

You are right, I do not have any burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your own conclusions and the way that you are reading into these experiments is in fact what the scientists themselves are proposing.
In the debate, you engage in weasel tactics and flip-flop between terms like hypothesis and scientific model. They are not the same.
There is no such thing as a scientific idealist model, or however you call it.
There is no consensus amongst scientists that materialism has been disproven.
There is nothing but you reading into these experiments, and while I do not have all the answers for you because I have not looked into them, what I have looked into clearly established that you in fact read wrong into both the conclusions, the findings and the purpose of the experiments. So why should I lose one moment of effort to discuss this further when some fundamental aspects and definitions are clearly misunderstood, which I will not repeat, that have been pointed out to you by others, and quite eloquently so?
You are welcome to hold whatever world view you wish. I am perfectly comfortable with that, even if it's wrong.

And there is no appeal to ignorance at play here unless you start with the premise that your own existence in a material universe is not axiomatic. Good luck with that.
There is also no argumentum ad populum commited in dismissing a claim due to a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary.

Again, you have absolutely no evidence or reason to doubt your own existence in a material universe before you even begin to delve into QM (and butcher it). To begin to investigate, you must first have reason to doubt. Tell me, what is your reason to doubt materialism from the get-go?

It is obvious that you are emotionally invested into the world  view you currently hold. It also gives you an excuse to look down on others. Until you voluntarily choose to take an objective view into what you believe and WHY you believe it, nothing we ever say will ever change your mind. But as it stands, your emotional investment prevents introspection, just like it does to religious people.

Shol'va, Materialism is a widely held belief. As the peer reviewed paper states:

Quote
Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

They said "realism" but we both know that they are nearly interchangeable, Materialism being dependent upon Realism. The fact that most working scientists, and indeed most human beings on the planet, are Materialists, gives you a sense of comfort in your position. I am admittedly the underdog in this discussion. You have a head start and hundreds of years of momentum behind you. However, universal truth is not measured by mass appeal.

No self respecting philosopher will claim that Materialism is axiomatic. Any world view should be built upon the fewest number of assumptions as possible. The foundation of my philosophy is built upon the statement "I exist". There is nothing about this foundation which necessitates Materialism.

Beyond "I exist" I note that I have perceptions. Notating that I perceive does not necessitate Materialism as it makes no claim about the perceptions or the source of those perceptions. It merely notes that perceptions are being had.

To spur forward my philosophy I need to make a decision about what it is am perceiving and what the source of these perceptions is. I have available a great many options, and it is here I presume, that you and I would deviate. If you wish to convince me that what I perceive are objective material objects that exist independent of observation, that is totally fine. But I will not accept such a claim about my perceptions without good reason to do so. I will remain skeptical of all claims until convinced otherwise.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2014, 07:56:12 PM »
Well Casparov, I'm not a philosopher. At best I dabble in it and that's it. And I'm probably lousy at it which is fine. I suppose I can learn.
But you see, I've got a family. I've got a job. I've got to go on with life. And as such, until anyone knows anything with absolute certainty I have to go on with my life and as a result sophistry is a casualty in all this. I suppose that makes me a pragmatist.
I have no desire to convince you of anything. Believe what you want.
Your argument, as you present it, comes across as somebody telling me "you know what, maybe the sky isn't actually blue".
Cool. I'm not sure where that leaves me. Should I go back to eating dinner?

So you've had your much wanted debate. You've had conversations here with many. You haven't convinced anyone.
So where does that leave you?
Because I hope you realize you have no good reason to convince anyone. It's not like our souls are at stake or something.
So does this mean you will be leaving?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:59:10 PM by Shol'va »

Offline Casparov

Re: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2014, 08:00:00 PM »
Casparov I am still unclear. If I accept your world view ... then what? What are the implications? In other words what is your world view selling that I should be buying?

Shol'va, I am not here to sell anything. I am just a man in the world searching for truth. I am here because you all disagree with what I have found to be the best explanation of the evidence, and I am trying to find out what your arguments are. What the basis for your philosophy is. What evidence you have that supports your world view. I want to make sure there is not something that I am missing. Some key point that you all have arrived at that somehow I missed.

I have come here in search of someone who can prove me wrong.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein