Some questions for the poster called jesus is with you

Debate Room
121

Okay, I’ll explain my adventure with quantum information.

As you mentioned, quantum information refers to the state of a quantum system. For example, if you were a particle and we wanted to know the state of your position, your state would describe how likely you are to be here or there. A quantum state is indeed a superposition of many possibilities.

We obtain this information through measurement, which involves testing or manipulating a physical system to produce a numerical result. In this case, placing a detector here to see if you are here means that if I detect you, I have obtained information about your position. This reduces the uncertainty because now I know you are here and not there. Therefore, measurement reduces the superposition to a few possible states.

I believe I’ve given a very simple explanation. Without information, you could be anywhere. Measurement provides information and pinpoints your location.

Now, for the intriguing part…

Having information about a quantum system alters its behavior. This means that when you don’t have information about a particle, it behaves differently than when you do have information. The double-slit experiment is a perfect example of this.

Imagine two slits in a wall and a detector a few meters behind it. When particles are fired at these slits, they pass through one slit or the other, and the detector behind will detect particles in two vertical lines, one for each slit.

However, this isn’t what happens. Instead, the detector shows an interference pattern, as if a wave, not a particle, has passed through the slits.

Now, if you place a detector at one of the slits, this detector provides specific information about the particles’ positions—you know if a particle has passed through one slit. This reduces the uncertainty, and particles then behave as discrete particles, producing two vertical lines.

So, why do we know it’s information, rather than physical interaction, that changes the particle’s behavior?

Because when you place a detector at one slit and the particle passes through the other slit, there is no direct physical interaction between the particle and the detector. Nevertheless, the wave function collapses because you know precisely where the particle wasn’t (in the other slit), and the particle starts behaving like a particle. This is what is so fascinating about this experiment.

Switch off the detector, and the particle behaves like a wave again. Yes, it’s strange, right?

So yes, information—without implying any direct physical interaction—changes the behavior of material reality, literally. That’s it.

This is one of the reasons I say that reality is far more complex than a simple mechanical process. Information directly affects reality.

122

That is very misleading (and I think I’m being more than charitable by using that word).

This is also misleading.

3 Likes
123

Information in this context is the data needed to create/update a probability distribution. So what you are saying here is a tautology; it had to be true. It is also true of the ordinary world (human sized world we live in); consider the famous Monte Hall Problem: when we receive additional information, we update our probabilities, and end up altering our choice in the game to increase our chance of winning. Receiving (previously unknown) information changes probability distributions; at the microscopic and macroscopic scale. There is nothing magical about this.

1 Like
124

No, it doesn’t. The behavior of the system is not altered, You are only observing one portion of the system. The “SYSTEM” is both a wave and a particle. You have opted to observe either the wave portion of the system or the particle portion of the system. Then there is this: The Zeno effect’ verified—atoms won’t move while you watch. OOPS!

Having information about a quantum system alters its behavior. This is a fundamental misinterpretation.

She explains it more simply and much better than I can. (3 minutes)

1 Like
125

As far as I understand, this is not what the video is saying. The video states exactly what I had been saying: before observation, the particle is a wave of probabilities, and after observation, it behaves like a particle.

However, the video claims that physical interaction is required, which I disagree with. I posted a simple example: when you place the detector in the slit where there is no particle, the particle in the other slit changes its behavior. Of course, you can interpret that the detector is part of the particle’s wave function, but it doesn’t change the fact that no direct physical interaction is required to collapse the particle’s wave function.

Not only that, but consider the “delayed choice quantum eraser.” Removing information after measurement also produces unexpected results—not necessarily retro-causal (as some have interpreted it), but definitely proving that it is information that collapses (or un-collapses) the wave function.

This video addresses something I have been very careful about from the beginning. I have always said “information,” not “consciousness,” to avoid being misleading.

126

No. That is not what the video says at all. You believe there is such a thing as passive observation. The video tells you, 'Passive observation is not a thing."

“There is no such thing as a passive bystander influencing the outcome.”

In the quantum state, the particle is both a wave and a particle. It is everywhere. By observing the particle, you are a quantum observer, interfacing with the quantum system, and influencing what you wish to observe. Observing does not alter the system. Changing the system alters the system.

NO! Observing, according to the video we have both watched, is a physical interface. It is a quantum observation. There is nothing magical or mysterious about it.

127

This is more or less what I was explaining here…

While you might consider interacting with the probability wave of a particle as a physical interaction, this interaction occurs with a wave, not a particle, and we don’t know the nature of this wave. Moreover, the delayed-choice quantum eraser strongly suggests that it is information that causes the collapse.

The very concept of a particle’s non-locality is mysterious in itself. Additionally, the collapse of the wave function is puzzling, as it occurs only when information is obtained and can be reversed when information is destroyed. Moreover, the collapse seems to happen faster than the speed of light, among other perplexing aspects.

128

All interactions are physical.

2 Likes
129

Well, at least we know where the problem is. LOL YOUR WRONG Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …
Listen to Nyarlathotep!

130

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU, you have consistently used Wikipedia or white papers you’ve not researched thoroughly to argue with folks here who have advanced credentials in mathematics, biology, medicine, physics, etc. Have you considered reflecting on that for even a few minutes?

1 Like
131

I think you are more interested in using the word “physical” (which seems to produce some form of psychological effect) than analyzing the actual events taking place at the quantum level.

To consider the wave function a physical entity and to regard interaction with it as a physical interaction is highly questionable. There are strong reasons to doubt that a wave function is a physical object. In fact, it is not considered physical reality but rather a representation of possibility. To consider it a physical interaction, I think you would need to adopt the many-worlds interpretation, but this is merely a supposition.

Moreover, you have not addressed the delayed-choice quantum eraser, where it appears that information is what causes the wave function to “un-collapse.”

132

I think you have ignored the information posted in the video, that clearly evidenced a physical interaction, as well as multiple posts telling you that there were physical interactions, and you are so stuck on your own transcendental explanation that you refuse to see the facts that are right in front of your face. YOU ARE WRONG.

No one really cares what you think. Do you not get that the evidence and the experts in the field are NOT saying what you are saying? Do you really think you are going to convince anyone of your position? You are in the wrong place and arguing with the wrong people. Go to a quantum physics site and argue with people who make it their life to understand this stuff. When you win your Nobel prize, come on back and say “Na na na na na ner, I told you so.” Until then until then, I am going with the experts in the field.

1 Like
133

No, the wave function cannot be considered physical in the classical sense, at least. It is part of physics, yes, but not part of materialism, which is different.

Okay, explain the delayed-choice quantum eraser.

Zeilinger, A., 1999. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics , 29 (4), pp.631-643.

Quantum mechanics is magic. (Or, better said, our idea of reality is wrong.)

I only told you that reality is not as simplistic as you assumed, and I just demonstrated that.

134

That is a strawman. I’m willing to discuss the subject, but I’m not willing to let you select my arguments for me. Pick one:

  1. A conversation.
  2. You want to put words into my mouth.

You can’t have both. If you want #1, you need to retract your strawman. If you want #2, you don’t need to do anything at all.

1 Like
135

Yes, I choose 1, and of course, I retract anything I may not have fully understood.

Anyway, remember that the point I’m making is that reality is not as simple as it seems, and I believe it’s quite clear at this stage that reality is anything but the linear process some assume it to be.

However, I’m curious, and I’m always happy to learn new things, so I choose 1.

136

"It is clear
that it may be a matter of taste whether or not one accepts the suggested
641 A Foundational Principle for Quantum Mechanics
principle as self-evident, as I do. " At no point is he asserting any kind of reality.

HE SAYS NOTHING DEFINITIVE - You are proposing the definite out of a supposition.
"While I have given here, only in a very sketchy way, a few points of
a new view of quantum mechanics,…

Did you read the article you referenced?

137

great; would you like to repost your question/comments to me without the strawman? or was the strawman the goal all along?

138

I’m not sure what I have to do now, but I will try.

You said all interactions are physical.

However, I think the wavefunction is not a classical physical entity — it’s not even a ‘thing.’ So, how could you have a physical interaction with something that isn’t physical?

139

I said interactions are physical; I didn’t say wavefunctions are physical. Wavefunctions are [the mathematical representation of] states, interactions are not states.

Why are you repeatedly trying to exchange (proverbial) apples for oranges?

3 Likes
140

Fine, but the detector should be interacting with something, even when the particle collapses at the other slit. What is the detector interacting with?

Moreover, what about the delayed-choice quantum eraser? Deleting information after measurement also produces an interference pattern when the results from the different detectors are combined. While it’s not necessarily retrocausal, it certainly seems to suggest that it is the presence of information that collapses (or in this case, uncollapses) the wave function.