Quantum Strangeness

[RichardT]

I've wanted to explore some of the conclusions arrived by the findings of quantum theory. It is said that quantum particles behave differently by the act of observing them. Can I conclude that the universe as we observe it doesn't actually exist? Or that consciousness creates "reality"? What are your thoughts?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I've wanted to explore some of the conclusions arrived by the findings of quantum theory. It is said that quantum particles behave differently by the act of observing them.

That is correct.

The act of observation requires an intelligent observer with a priori concepts such as space, time, causality, and number.

"Actually we had those ping pong evenings once a week. There were all kinds of peculiar people there, even three Americans who later got the Nobel Prize: van Vleck, Mullikan, and Rabi. Maybe a dozen people all together. And they would talk about the whole world, including the incredible change that had been going on in physics. Niels Bohr had started to explain what makes an atom stable. In 1925, Heisenberg essentially completed the theory. Then, during the next two years, together with Niels Bohr, he explained what the new theory meant. Without any doubt in my mind, of all the strange and important things that I witnessed in my life, this was the most strange and the most important." -- Edward Teller, physicist, 1990

"One part that came to maturity in the pauses between ping pong games is also perhaps the most important from the point of view of general interest. The name of this particular discovery is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It takes a strange position in regard to an ancient question, determinism. Is the future really predictable? If we knew the situation at the present with complete accuracy, then the laws of physics say that the future should be completely predictable. What Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says is that it is impossible to know completely accurately what the present is." -- Edward Teller, physicist, 1990

Can I conclude that the universe as we know it doesn't actually exist? What are your thoughts?

The claim is that the universe exists as we know it and perhaps not in any other way.

You could conclude that there is no actual universe as perhaps did Bishop Berkeley and certainly David Hume.

However, Immanuel Kant refutes this in his Critique of Pure Reason.

He says that although space, time, causality, and number are a priori imaginary, in order for objects of experience to appear to us we must at least believe that there are actual objects doing the appearing.

However, we can have no access to actual objects because we project a priori concepts onto them and experience them only after a priori concepts such as space, time, number, and causality have already been applied to them. Thus we can only refer to objects of experience.

I think Clinton Davisson and Werner Heisenberg himself would agree with Kant, however there has been much healthy debate about this.

"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927

"When we make an experiment we have to assume a causal chain of events that leads from the atomic event through the apparatus finally to the eye of the observer; if this causal chain was not assumed, nothing could be known about the atomic event." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

"In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

"...if we take Heisenberg literally, the moon is not there when nobody is looking at it." -- Thomas Knierim, philosopher, 1999

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I found the exact passage from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason so we can allow the Master to speak for himself.

From B xxvi:

"... we cannot have [speculative] cognition of any object as thing in itself, but can have such cognition only insofar as the object is one of sensible intuition, i.e. an appearance. And from this it does indeed follow that any possible cognition of reason is restricted to mere objects of experience. On the other hand, it must be noted carefully that this [conclusion] is always subject to this reservation: that we must be able at least to think, even if not speculatively cognize, the same objects as things in themselves. For otherwise an absurd proposition would follow, viz. that there is an appearance without anything that appears."

 

[RichardT]

Very interesting. I've got to get around to reading Kant.

 

[greenery]

If I didn't exist nothing would exist.

 

[MoonLancer]

If I didn't exist nothing would exist.

Im afraid to break it to you, but my ego would still survive your non existence.

 

[lindylu]

If conciousness created reality we of western society are to be pitied more than any other. Who would create a reality of starving children,aids,pedophilia,sexual perversion,war between tribes, poverty. Who would dream up megalomanic rulers?????? The people in such dire circumstanes would be able to change things....according to your idea, right?

 

[RichardT]

If I didn't exist nothing would exist.

I don't think that solipsism is correct. For solipsism to be true you would have to have knowledge of what exterior forces are going to do to you. Since there are unknowns outside of your perception, I would say that it's more likely that you aren't the only conscious agent.

With that being said, I believe that the universe is actually in a state of flux and that our observations cause the universe to be such a way instead of many other possibilities, would I be wrong?

 

[sfs]

I've wanted to explore some of the conclusions arrived by the findings of quantum theory. It is said that quantum particles behave differently by the act of observing them. Can I conclude that the universe as we observe it doesn't actually exist? Or that consciousness creates "reality"? What are your thoughts?

Quite a lot of work has been done on quantum measurement over the last couple of decades, and the answer is no, consciousness is not involved. Interaction with any macroscopic system, conscious or not, changes the behavior of the particle and acts as an effective observation. In the particular case of coherent superpositions of states, which is where a lot of the weirdness of QM turns up (e.g. Schrodinger's Cat), interaction of the system in the superposed state with a macroscopic object (like the cat) causes the system to rapidly "decohere"; that is, the cat is always in one state or the other, not in a superposition.

 

[Steffenfield]

If conciousness created reality we of western society are to be pitied more than any other. Who would create a reality of starving children,aids,pedophilia,sexual perversion,war between tribes, poverty. Who would dream up megalomanic rulers?????? The people in such dire circumstanes would be able to change things....according to your idea, right?

You forgot to mention The Detroit Lions. *lol*

 

[RichardT]

Quite a lot of work has been done on quantum measurement over the last couple of decades, and the answer is no, consciousness is not involved. Interaction with any macroscopic system, conscious or not, changes the behavior of the particle and acts as an effective observation. In the particular case of coherent superpositions of states, which is where a lot of the weirdness of QM turns up (e.g. Schrodinger's Cat), interaction of the system in the superposed state with a macroscopic object (like the cat) causes the system to rapidly "decohere"; that is, the cat is always in one state or the other, not in a superposition.

The fact that I observe something changes the location of the particles. If I understand you correctly you are saying that anything will change the position of the particles and that this isn't that much of a concern. I would like to know what this could mean about observable reality? Does this mean that things are in a state of superposition before we observe them?

 

[Soul Searcher]

I won't even pretend to understand quatum mechanics but when I see that observing these particles causes them to change I am wondering how would anyone know? The point being if they are not being observed they could be changing in the exact same way but no one would know.

 

[Gracchus]

I won't even pretend to understand quatum mechanics...{/quote]

"Anyone who thinks he understands quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics." --- Richard Feynman

.. but when I see that observing these particles causes them to change I am wondering how would anyone know?

What the uncertainty principle states is that you can determine the position of a subatomic particle and you can determine its velocity, but not at the same time. One way to think about it is that the act of detecting it changes its state.

The point being if they are not being observed they could be changing in the exact same way but no one would know.

And there is a big, ugly stinking monster that you can't see, hear, or smell behind your back, which is why everyone avoids you.



Seriously, if you want to find out what quantum mechanics actually says, you have to actually be able to understand the math. There are no words that can describe it.