Expectation Causes Collapse in Double-Slit Experiment.
- Thread starter kwhilborn
- Start date
@vAsh64449,
I did say I am not going to argue this here but prefer to make my Interpretation public as my version could easily explain Quantum Entanglement, and Carl Jung's Theory of Synchronicity, and much more. If the past can alter then faster than light speed communication between the 2 particles in Quantum Entanglement would not be necessary. The particles might be able to re-create their origin to start off with, By altering its current trajectory/spin you may be altering its intention and altering history to affect the other.
The only other explanations for quantum entanglement might be instantaneous communication possible, or that these objects are actually the same object, and we only perceive them as separate limited to a third dimension view (Bohms idea).
I did however read your comment, and from what I'm gathering you are saying "all possibilities should collapse in schrodingers box".
The idea of all superpositions being possible and all superpositions existing are two different things. My argument is that prior to collapsing you would be in a superposition wave form influenced by the expectation of a consciousness. Not in all positions.
I would go further and say that even that collapse may only be a wave superposition until wigners friend collapses it again, and it gets collapsed again by his friends. It could be the expectation of many to affect a single collapse. Once these people are collapsed by people with no mathematical superpositional knowledge of the experiments then that area of the experiment becomes more stable.
There is a lot to be considered with this line of thinking, and my Theory is that Expectation influences collapse. I am still looking at how this fits with further collapses.
Also the size of electrons would not matter. Electrons are only a tiny part of an atom, and atoms are only tiny parts of a cat. The fact that the waves collapse is not related to size, and is already a known condition in physics. The Interpretations are attempts to explain how this occurs, but collapse does occur. So particles do not exist in all superposition states at the same time ever. There is an Interpretation that allows math based on superposition states being anywhere as equally valid, but not everywhere at the same time. I hope this makes sense to you.
It would be impossible to prove my Interpretation wrong, as it is based upon a unproven Interpretation to begin with. My Interpretation is directly related to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Some have come to view it having mystical properties and suggest it requires consciousness to affect collapse. I have merely expanded Expectation into that viewpoint. You could look at every criticism to that viewpoint as there is thousands, but my thought is a mere expansion of that, that makes a lot of sense.
I did say I am not going to argue this here but prefer to make my Interpretation public as my version could easily explain Quantum Entanglement, and Carl Jung's Theory of Synchronicity, and much more. If the past can alter then faster than light speed communication between the 2 particles in Quantum Entanglement would not be necessary. The particles might be able to re-create their origin to start off with, By altering its current trajectory/spin you may be altering its intention and altering history to affect the other.
The only other explanations for quantum entanglement might be instantaneous communication possible, or that these objects are actually the same object, and we only perceive them as separate limited to a third dimension view (Bohms idea).
I did however read your comment, and from what I'm gathering you are saying "all possibilities should collapse in schrodingers box".
The idea of all superpositions being possible and all superpositions existing are two different things. My argument is that prior to collapsing you would be in a superposition wave form influenced by the expectation of a consciousness. Not in all positions.
I would go further and say that even that collapse may only be a wave superposition until wigners friend collapses it again, and it gets collapsed again by his friends. It could be the expectation of many to affect a single collapse. Once these people are collapsed by people with no mathematical superpositional knowledge of the experiments then that area of the experiment becomes more stable.
There is a lot to be considered with this line of thinking, and my Theory is that Expectation influences collapse. I am still looking at how this fits with further collapses.
Also the size of electrons would not matter. Electrons are only a tiny part of an atom, and atoms are only tiny parts of a cat. The fact that the waves collapse is not related to size, and is already a known condition in physics. The Interpretations are attempts to explain how this occurs, but collapse does occur. So particles do not exist in all superposition states at the same time ever. There is an Interpretation that allows math based on superposition states being anywhere as equally valid, but not everywhere at the same time. I hope this makes sense to you.
It would be impossible to prove my Interpretation wrong, as it is based upon a unproven Interpretation to begin with. My Interpretation is directly related to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Some have come to view it having mystical properties and suggest it requires consciousness to affect collapse. I have merely expanded Expectation into that viewpoint. You could look at every criticism to that viewpoint as there is thousands, but my thought is a mere expansion of that, that makes a lot of sense.
Last edited:
I didn't say that every probability should collapse in schrodinger's box. You know it is when the particles motion decides whether it will boom or not!!! so you know it's probability wave permeates in space,giving us where it will be present.But when you open the box,you actually interact with some probability wave,so that PART of probability wave collapsed...leaving only another probability..So one probability is out,so other probability sets in.So expectations cannot cause anything because you are just thinking which involves no contact of matter..And even if some change will be there in you wave function(Dual nature of matter),That wave function will be insufficient to create any change to those probability.
@ Ash64449,
Observation would also not contact matter (in my version), although some argue it is the mechanics involved in observation that cause collapse. So there is no difference between mine and the Copenhagen Interpretation in that regard either. My Interpretation does explain why one electron can interfere with itself. Wave to particle is the dual nature.
Observation would also not contact matter (in my version), although some argue it is the mechanics involved in observation that cause collapse. So there is no difference between mine and the Copenhagen Interpretation in that regard either. My Interpretation does explain why one electron can interfere with itself. Wave to particle is the dual nature.
No friend,Observation is just like contacting(touching matter)...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114913-the-double-slit-experiment
Observation is just like touching matter,answer comes when one realises how one observes it.
I would have to say that the scientist that worked on the double slit experiment didn't expect the results that they found from it, if their expectations could alter how we perceive quantum mechanical behavior it would have more likely been Newtonian. I think it is more of a matter of particles having the ability to exist in quantum superposition even though on the macro scale matter cannot exist in quantum superposition. So then since particles can exist in multiple states at once, when it interacts with matter that cannot exist in these multiple states it has to randomly pick out one of these states to be in, in order to interact. So then it is like the act of observation just pulls the particle out of this state of quantum superposition. It can no longer be in all the positions it could have seen itself in if it was seen to interact with an observer. So then the amount of quantum states of a partical can be seen to be more of a matter of its relative velocity. Macroscopic matter traveling at slow speeds does not have much uncertainty, and microscopic matter that is traveling close to the speed of light has much more uncertainty. So then what happens when a microscopic objects interact with a macroscopic object? The amount of uncertainty is nontransferable. The microscopic particle has to choose a state that is more consistant with the macroscopic world. It can't tell macroscopic world that it saw itself here and there and over yonder at the same time and that macroscopic object then has to react as though it was for the macroscopic world it is just unacceptable. It is as though all the tiny particles that make up the macroscopic object has already reached a limit to the amount of uncertainty that the particles that make up that object already have so that any interaction with an object with a high degree of uncertainty is then forced into a state of less uncertainty.
So I think you will never be able to open a box and see a cat dead and alive at the same time, and I don't buy into the MWI. But if the MWI was true, than the many worlds would only exist and not exist at the same time, and in a way they do because they only really exist inside of peoples minds,
So I think you will never be able to open a box and see a cat dead and alive at the same time, and I don't buy into the MWI. But if the MWI was true, than the many worlds would only exist and not exist at the same time, and in a way they do because they only really exist inside of peoples minds,
I would have to say that the scientist that worked on the double slit experiment didn't expect the results that they found from it, if their expectations could alter how we perceive quantum mechanical behavior it would have more likely been Newtonian. I think it is more of a matter of particles having the ability to exist in quantum superposition even though on the macro scale matter cannot exist in quantum superposition. So then since particles can exist in multiple states at once, when it interacts with matter that cannot exist in these multiple states it has to randomly pick out one of these states to be in, in order to interact. So then it is like the act of observation just pulls the particle out of this state of quantum superposition. It can no longer be in all the positions it could have seen itself in if it was seen to interact with an observer. So then the amount of quantum states of a partical can be seen to be more of a matter of its relative velocity. Macroscopic matter traveling at slow speeds does not have much uncertainty, and microscopic matter that is traveling close to the speed of light has much more uncertainty. So then what happens when a microscopic objects interact with a macroscopic object? The amount of uncertainty is nontransferable. The microscopic particle has to choose a state that is more consistant with the macroscopic world. It can't tell macroscopic world that it saw itself here and there and over yonder at the same time and that macroscopic object then has to react as though it was for the macroscopic world it is just unacceptable. It is as though all the tiny particles that make up the macroscopic object has already reached a limit to the amount of uncertainty that the particles that make up that object already have so that any interaction with an object with a high degree of uncertainty is then forced into a state of less uncertainty.
So I think you will never be able to open a box and see a cat dead and alive at the same time, and I don't buy into the MWI. But if the MWI was true, than the many worlds would only exist and not exist at the same time, and in a way they do because they only really exist inside of peoples minds,
"So I think you will never be able to open a box and see a cat dead and alive at the same time,..."
No kidding? What makes you think anyone would expect to find that result? You really don't have any idea what the physics actually predicts.
It predicts that the cat in the schrodinger cat experiment is both dead and alive at the same time until the cat is observered. I am saying that the cat is isn't both dead and alive at the same time, because macroscopic matter is somehow resistant to quantum properties. They don't transfer to macroscopic matter. No one has been able to verify the result of the schrodinger cat problem, so it is a unproved theory. I think that in the MWI the cat would end up being dead in one world and then alive in another world, so then the cat would still in a sense be alive and dead at the same time, just not in the same world. There would be no way to know if the cat experienced a different outcome in another world. For instance, you wouldn't be able to shoot the cat between a double slit experiment and notice that it went through the two slits as though it was dead and alive at the same time if you didn't look at in the box while it was going through the two slits. You would never find an interference pattern of alive and dead remains on the screen regardless if it was observered or not.
No. It doesn't predict the cat is alive and dead at the same time. It predicts you can't know whether the cat is dead or alive until you make the observation. The following is something I wrote several years ago.
The observation doesn't cause the event to occur it just confirms which event occurred out of a set of all possible events. For instance Schrodinger's thought experiment. There is a probability that the cat is dead and a probability that the cat is alive while the box is closed. When we open the box we discover which state the cat is in. At this point the set of all possible events is reduced to one event. What we observed.
There's a large set of interpretations of QM. The one that seems to confuse folks the most is the Copenhagen Interpretation. The first one.
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
If you're interested I'll link you to three posts written by Mr_Homm, Prof Stuart Anderson at UW, on the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Heisenberg UP. Brilliant discourse on QM. You have to go to physforum to access them. Brilliant perspective. Just the discussion on choice of coordinates is a great teaching discussion.
So then what of the electron cloud? Bohr didn't even beleive that electrons could be quantized and even in the Copenhagen Interpretation it says that Einstein was the one that introduced this idea. A particle is seen to be in multiple states at the same time, not just really have had been in one discrete location or the other. In other words, there is an interference pattern as seen in the double slit experiment. This wouldn't occur if there where only discrete location of particles acting alone throughout the experiment. I don't know of any prinicple that seperates the cat in Schordingers Paradox from any other types of particles.
It's no difference for the electron in the atom. The probability cloud [your term not mine] is the set of all possible electron positions [paths]. Schrodingers equation describes this natural phenomena. IE probability cloud. Probability distribution. Richard Feynman's QED names it the 'sum of all possible paths'. Same difference. Both explain the double slit phenomena.
Okay, and the sets of all these possible paths interact with each other and the sets of these paths do not in turn create sets that interact with each other in the MWI. So then it is as though the "resistance" of macroscopic matter from quantum mechanical behaivor manifest itself into different descriptions of possible worlds or outcomes. Then only one of these outcomes is the correct outcome, or the accurate description of reality. The MWI prevents the possiblity of an interference pattern of dead and alive cats because it says that only one of these outcomes actually happens per world in the box. So then it is a matter of picking out wich world in MWI is the world that describes our world. So in a way without mulitple worlds or another description as to why macroscopic matter doesn't take on quantum mechanical behaivor, any outcome from such an interaction would be wrong if you couldn't just throw out descriptions of reality that are not a consequence of what happened in our world. Then since these other interactions that are being thrown out happen and didn't happen at the same time, these worlds in a sense exist and don't exist at the same time relative to our world. Parts of the quantum mechanical behaivor are picked up by these other worlds that no longer have an influence on our reality, so then without the many worlds and lack of a principle to seperate quantum mechanical behavior with more Newtonian behavior, you would end up with a description of reality that said that there should be an interference pattern of dead and alive cats that has gone through a two slit experiment in a Schrodingers Box.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is just another pedagogical way to help introduce students to QM. All the interpretations are pedagogical. It's seems that you may not understand the MWI pedagogical path. Interpretations are not meant to be taken literally. You should have asked to read Mr_Homm. From my novice perspective it would be Mr_Homm closest to literal. Have a good one.
I would think that the MWI has had the exact opposite effect on helping teachers getting students to understand QM. I just find it ironic that the MWI could one day lead scientist to a more accurate description of our world and our own reality. I would say it is just to remind us that there isn't a real connection between QM and everyday physics. So then if we were to explain everyday physics only using QM then you would in a sense have to use MWI in order to find the description that is our world. QM would naturally generate results of other worlds that do not have an effect on our own reality, because in everyday reality it doesn't behave quantum mechanically. It really is the only way that we know of as to how to distinguish what QM has to say about the everyday world and how to find an accurate description of that world in QM. I wouldn't mind you posting a link of Mr. Homm, I would have time to take a look at it.
MWI is my least favorite interpretation behind the Copenhagen Interpretation. Just my opinion which doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this case. For each installment you need to find the author, Mr_Homm, date, and time listed. IE scroll down.
Mr_Homm's treatise on the Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The thread was 'A simple question'. Scroll down to the date and time I list for the Mr_Homm posts.
This was the first installment: Mr_Homm, Jan. 23, 2008 05:41 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=0
This was the second installment: Mr_Homm, Jan. 26, 2008 06:22 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=15
Final installment: Mr_Homm Jan. 30, 2008 06:15 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=30
Later
Bruce
PS At one time this was a great site. Now it's a garbage compactor.
I linked Mr_Homm but the mods picked it off so I can't say when it will appear. It's really worth reading.
Here it is without the stuff I wrote.
Mr_Homm's treatise on the Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The thread was 'A simple question'. Scroll down to the date and time I list for the Mr_Homm posts.
This was the first installment: Mr_Homm, Jan. 23, 2008 05:41 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=0
This was the second installment: Mr_Homm, Jan. 26, 2008 06:22 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=15
Final installment: Mr_Homm Jan. 30, 2008 06:15 AM
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19663&st=30
Later
Bruce
Can't say I agree with some of the opinions of Mr. Homm's, in particular some of his conclusions in the summery of his final installment, that really came in handy. I think his conclusions are wrong because the wavelike properties in the two slit experiment arrise from a large variety of possiblities that are actually taking place. There is an interference pattern with particles that are not even shot at the same time, only one after another. So then in order for this interference pattern to arrise, then basicly everything he said that there wasn't in the summery would have to exist in order to cause this type of interference. That would in turn have an effect on other fundemental particles, but not on something like nuclei of atoms or molecules. Mr. Homms seems to think that particles can act like billiard balls, when they don't. I am saying that there has to be a transition or description of QM that seperates particles from billiard balls, and an attempt at such a description is MWI. It is not because particles act like billiard balls.
Mr_Homm is an expert quantum physicist. What you think is wrong with what he said is nonsense. Pretty much like everything you've said to me. Starting with the nonsense about QM predicting that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.