What is the relationship between scale and rate of change in quantum mechanics?

  • Thread starter Tiberius
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qm
In summary, the concept of "observation" in quantum mechanics does not refer to consciousness or the role of human observers. It simply means the disturbance of a system by particles being fired into it. This misconception has led to false interpretations and claims of QM supporting mystical ideas. The blame cannot solely be placed on New Agers, as some scientists have also presented wild theories without evidence. The misinterpretation of the word "observation" has caused confusion, but it is important to understand that QM is a science and has nothing to do with conscious beings or awareness.
  • #1
Tiberius
I've seen this a lot in people's post on Quantum Mechanics and just to clarify this common misconception...

QUANTUM MECHANICS AND THE TALK ABOUT "OBSERVERS" AND "OBSERVATIONS" HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS OR LIFE OR LIVING THINGS "OBSERVING" THINGS.

In QM when they talk about observations collapsing wave functions, they are talking about devices that fire particles and measure the way they bounce back to measure the traits of OTHER particles. When this happens, those particles being fired into the system disturb that very system - that is ALL that is meant by "observation". It doesn't include or have anything to do with consciousness or anything mystical that people are always trying to attach to it. It simply means that when you fire a particle into another particle, it will disturb the particle being hit - basic common sense.

On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.

People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.

So, once and for all, let everyone here know that QM as a science has nothing to do with conscious beings or awareness.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Tiberius
People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.

And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics.
 
  • #3
Tiberius,
I have recently read a number of of books on QM, QED etc. Admittedly they are written for laymen and not scientist but they use a lot of quotes. Quotes like the observer is as much a part of the experiement as are the detectors and particles themselves. They repeatedly say the the observer is the scientist doing the experiment. They also refer to such things as the EPR paradox which explicidly states that it takes a person to make the local observation to colapse the probability wave and therefore instantly know the state of a distant particle. I admit that I do not understand QM or QED or QFT but then a lot of very well know and respected authors including Fynman himself admit that they don't either. They however do not agree with you. Me? I only know what I read and you are far out numbered by some very great people in the field.
 
  • #4
New Agers also absolutely LOVE to pick up on that one. The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers, seems to fit very well with the idea of life after death, magic healing, psychic powers, ghosts, reincarnation and other hot topics for popular New Age books. Unfortunately the idea is appealing to those with existential worries, and will continue to be repeated as long as there are book stores that carry New Age material.
 
  • #5
The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers
New Agers believe this?? If ppl on Earth observe the universe - and one of these ppl die - the universe would still exist for everyone left alive on Earth to observe. So-->if everyone on Earth were to die - the universe would still exist. There just would'nt be any humans observers left alive to contemplate it. I am sure the roaches will enjoy the view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Originally posted by Eh
New Agers also absolutely LOVE to pick up on that one. The idea that the universe does not exist without human observers, seems to fit very well with the idea of life after death, magic healing, psychic powers, ghosts, reincarnation and other hot topics for popular New Age books. Unfortunately the idea is appealing to those with existential worries, and will continue to be repeated as long as there are book stores that carry New Age material.

Just a small quibble about putting the full blame on those flakey new agers for this problem. Who is it that publishes books on cats being dead and alive at the same time, who talks about the universe "running backwards" and all things that have happened going in reverse, and who is it that waxes poetic about time travel and endless bubbling and/or parallel universes?

In the absence of a sound theory to explain our origins, scientists too crank out some pretty wild stuff without the slightest bit of evidence to support their fantasies. Why should they be surprised when new agers pounce on it for their own purposes?
 
  • #7
What's a new ager and what do they have to do with QM and understanding it?
Who is Frijtof Capra? I'm not familiar with him though I've seen the name. What is "Tao of Physics?" Maybe I shouldn't ask and a better off knowing. My question still stands What has all this have to do will QM or QED?
Did I and many others really misread and misinterpret what the pioneers of QM said and wrote from 1900 to 1986. I realize that they, the theoretical physicists, have come a long way in the last 20 years but it seem to me that what they are doing is trying to come up with answers to the questions that the giants of QM created with the creation of the theory.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Royce
What's a new ager and what do they have to do with QM and understanding it?
Who is Frijtof Capra? I'm not familiar with him though I've seen the name. What is "Tao of Physics?" Maybe I shouldn't ask and a better off knowing. My question still stands What has all this have to do will QM or QED?
Did I and many others really misread and misinterpret what the pioneers of QM said and wrote from 1900 to 1986. I realize that they, the theoretical physicists, have come a long way in the last 20 years but it seem to me that what they are doing is trying to come up with answers to the questions that the giants of QM created with the creation of the theory.

I believe Tiberius is referring to the tendency of new age theorists (and sometimes the creationist variation, intelligent design) to leap on anything scientific which might be interpreted as a link between consciousness and physical reality (outside the body). New age thinking pretty much means taking the slightest physical coincidence and then making huge leaps in logic to suggest a theory. One of my favorite is some guy I read who stated as fact that "herd animals share a common soul."

In the case of a collapsing wave fuction, when scientists reported the impossibility of observing particles without disturbing them because, for example, using light to observe a particle sends photons barging in, new age thinkers interpreted that to mean that act of consciouness looking is what disturbs, rather than photon bombardment.

Regarding Frijtof Capra, he wrote his book in the early '90's, I believe, trying to forge some sort of bond between science and certain metaphysical ideas. I think his real purpose was to try to popularize physics. It's funny that Tom was upset about his physics; when I read it I was upset with his metaphysics. In any case, I don't think he succeeded in demonstrating a link between physics and metaphysics whatsoever (which is not to say there isn't a link).
 
Last edited:
  • #9
If that's the case, Les, they must think of me and others here as being a New Ager. I guess Einstein was too. We've been trying to link science and R_______ together since before scientist became scientists and were instead philosophers. It could go back to the Greeks for that matter. I think its funny how each new generation thinks that they are the New Age and all of there ideas are new. Of course we thought the same thing way back then.
 
  • #10
Nice thread, Tiberius, though it might be more confortable in the Theoretical Physics Forum. I'm glad that you saw the need to clear that up, because I've even personally met people who think that QM supports Strong Anthropic principle, because of the "observer"/"observation" distinction made in layman texts.
 
  • #11
Royce:
I'm glad you acknowledge the books you've read on QM were for the layman. The problem is that, without the mathematical framework, when you talk about QM on a conceptual level, the language makes it very easy to misunderstand what it is they are saying. Once you look at what the conceptual descriptions are actually describing, then it becomes clear that consciousness has nothing to do with colapsing wave functions or QM. This math-to-language barrier problem is intensified by the fact that many of these pop-science books intentionally use over-hyped language, and state leaps of judgement, for whatever motives. So, to answer your question, yes - you've misread (and they've mis-written). And actually the "greatest minds" you mentioned would agree with me once you get down to the details.


Mentat:
Thanks for nice your comments on the thread. I chose the philosophy section because it is here that the misconception is most often made, and for philosophic purposes that it most often effects.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Tiberius
On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.
Aah... But there's your problem...:wink:
What if the collapse doesn't happen at the level of
our brain but only "beyond" ? Will our brain be in
a super-position of states ? What will that mean ?
Is the fact that that doesn't appear to happen
merely reflective of the statistical unlikeliness or
the tiny lenghts of time ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Just a small quibble about putting the full blame on those flakey new agers for this problem. Who is it that publishes books on cats being dead and alive at the same time, who talks about the universe "running backwards" and all things that have happened going in reverse, and who is it that waxes poetic about time travel and endless bubbling and/or parallel universes?

I think the big difference is that of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the New Agers. While books about time travel and parallel universes are speculative, scientists usually won't claim they are anything more. While such things may be allowed by physics, mere speculation on the implications of such does not promote an agenda. New Agers on the other hand, will take a pre-existing theory like QM, and make blatently wrong claims about the findings of such theories. They make these claims either because they are uneducated on the matter, or are being blatently dishonest. Worse yet, these New Age authors could care less about the accuracy of the material. They are only trying to make other New Age claims (such as psychics and mediums) sound more credible, and they don't mind getting the facts incorrect.

In the absence of a sound theory to explain our origins, scientists too crank out some pretty wild stuff without the slightest bit of evidence to support their fantasies. Why should they be surprised when new agers pounce on it for their own purposes?

Give some examples of such theories. I think you will find that while being difficult to test, these theories you view as wild are actually based on actual physics. If a theory is shown to be incorrect, scientists will typically look elsewhere for explanations. That is because science is about actually trying to figure out how things work. The New Age authors on the other hand, could care less how things work. They are ONLY interested in promoting their religious beliefs, and if misquoting some scientists on QM gives more credibility to their beliefs, they will go with it. Upon being corrected, they will continue to spew out the same nonsense over and over. As you said above, creationists do the same thing, with no interest in the actual science but only in the promotion of their own religious worldviews.

In short, if scientists showed the same kind of intellectual dishonesty as New Age authors, they would be in the same boat.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Eh
New Agers on the other hand, will take a pre-existing theory like QM, and make blatently wrong claims about the findings of such theories. They make these claims either because they are uneducated on the matter, or are being blatently dishonest. Worse yet, these New Age authors could care less about the accuracy of the material. They are only trying to make other New Age claims (such as psychics and mediums) sound more credible, and they don't mind getting the facts incorrect.

I have no love for new age or any kind of theorizing that is not guided, and limited, by facts. I think you are right to say most of it (at least what I've read) is garbage. I am not sure it is blatent dishonesty, but rather just very little awareness of how inflexible the rules of physics really are. They get too creative for the understanding of the universe they have.

Originally posted by Eh
I think the big difference is that of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the New Agers. While books about time travel and parallel universes are speculative, scientists usually won't claim they are anything more. While such things may be allowed by physics, mere speculation on the implications of such does not promote an agenda. . . . Give some examples of such theories. I think you will find that while being difficult to test, these theories you view as wild are actually based on actual physics.

Well, here we disagree some. I believe most scientists who disseminate their ideas to the public do have an agenda, and that is to convince everyone that we live in a purely materialistic universe. I agree with you that mostly scientists are "about actually trying to figure out how things work," but that doesn't mean they aren't biased toward materialistic explanations of everything, including the orgin of the universe, life, and consciousness.

A theory I have been hearing everywhere spoken like it is a fact is that the universe began with a quantum fluctuation in "nothingness." Besides the fact that "nothing" fluctuation is utterly nonsensical (if it can fluctuate, it is at the very least something with the potential to fluctuate!), there is not one bit of experimental evidence from which to draw this conclusion. If nothing better comes along, I bet you in a few years it will be every bit as accepted as "most likely" as my other favorite pet peeve already is.

That peeve is, and we don't need to argue this again, the claim that life is a product of spontaneous chemical genesis. Once more scientists' commitment to a materialistic explanation (i.e., an agenda), make them say chemogenesis is "most likely" when they cannot demonstrate chemistry has the potential to spontaneously kick into the sort of self-organizing gear it takes to reach a living system.

The genesis aspect, in fact, is exactly were every hole is in the materialist theory. They don't have a single confirmed answer there, just a bunch of theories patched in so that the materialist explanation can continue with the blessing of "sound science" (I imagine Walter Cronkite speaking that).

Meanwhile, and I think you know I don't believe an alternative to materialistic theory has to be the Biblical or any other kind of God, there are others who think, and feel, there is "something more." I don't believe science can reveal it, but maybe that's because science only reveals materialist stuff.

Of course, when not exaggerating claims of "most likely" I far prefer science to new age silliness. What I don't like is the discounting by materialistic types of all feeling. Built into us is our capacity for logic, but built in also is our feeling. All logic is not equal, and all feeling isn't equal. Some people feel so deeply they sense this "something more." They can't quantify it, they can't prove it. But with logic one can't grasp a feeling either.

To be a feeling person isn't a license to be stupid or emotional, it is just to recognize there are aspects of reality that can only be felt and never be rationalized or proved. But so what? If the "something more" can only be felt, and all you are open to is logic . . . well then you won't know it, and you may even start to devise a philosophy that is based on logic and observation, and which defines feeling as not to be trusted in the pursuit of truth.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Well, here we disagree some. I believe most scientists who disseminate their ideas to the public do have an agenda, and that is to convince everyone that we live in a purely materialistic universe. I agree with you that mostly scientists are "about actually trying to figure out how things work," but that doesn't mean they aren't biased toward materialistic explanations of everything, including the orgin of the universe, life, and consciousness.

I don't see it. Can you give some examples?

The way I see it, science will work the same regardless of whether physicalism or idealism is correct. As such, I don't think there are any theories that conflict with idealism. That's because any theory is neccessarily restricted to describing how the natural world works - and it cannot go beyond that with metaphysical claims.

A theory I have been hearing everywhere spoken like it is a fact is that the universe began with a quantum fluctuation in "nothingness." Besides the fact that "nothing" fluctuation is utterly nonsensical (if it can fluctuate, it is at the very least something with the potential to fluctuate!), there is not one bit of experimental evidence from which to draw this conclusion. If nothing better comes along, I bet you in a few years it will be every bit as accepted as "most likely" as my other favorite pet peeve already is.

There is some confusion here. The nothing fluctuation is not to the same as the philosophical topic of nonexistence. The void that is speculated to have existed prior to the big bang is merely a quantum state where time and space do not exist. That is, a state where nothing exists except the laws of physics. So while this theory does not reify the zero, it does deify the laws of physics - and any arbitrary laws at that. So the claim being made here is that the fundamental thing in the natural world is the laws of physics, not spacetime or any fields. But again, this is limited to the natural world. It does not say anything about the origin of the laws of physics, and cannot.

I doubt this rather silly idea is going to be accepted by most physicists any time soon.

That peeve is, and we don't need to argue this again, the claim that life is a product of spontaneous chemical genesis. Once more scientists' commitment to a materialistic explanation (i.e., an agenda), make them say chemogenesis is "most likely" when they cannot demonstrate chemistry has the potential to spontaneously kick into the sort of self-organizing gear it takes to reach a living system.

Keep in mind that science is only the study of the natural world, and there is no alternative to the idea. Given that life is ultimately chemistry, it seems to be plausible that the very origin of life to has a chemical origin. But that's just the restriction of science.

The genesis aspect, in fact, is exactly were every hole is in the materialist theory. They don't have a single confirmed answer there, just a bunch of theories patched in so that the materialist explanation can continue with the blessing of "sound science" (I imagine Walter Cronkite speaking that).

Hang on a minute here. I don't think any scientists would claim the area of abiogenesis is a solid science yet. Yes, it's all speculation at this point, but there are really no alternatives that could ever make any predictions.

Meanwhile, and I think you know I don't believe an alternative to materialistic theory has to be the Biblical or any other kind of God, there are others who think, and feel, there is "something more." I don't believe science can reveal it, but maybe that's because science only reveals materialist stuff.

That's the position I take. Science is only limited to the study of the natural world, regardless of whether or not it is all there is to existence. The question of "something more" does not change how the natural world works, and is really left to philosophy.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Tiberius
Mentat:
Thanks for nice your comments on the thread. I chose the philosophy section because it is here that the misconception is most often made, and for philosophic purposes that it most often effects.

Good point.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Eh
I don't see it. Can you give some examples?

I have so many books that do it, it would take me all day to list them. Everyone from Francis Crick to Daniel Dennett either imply or outright state that no other explanation beyond physical processes are, or will be, required to explain life and consciousness.

Originally posted by Eh
Hang on a minute here. I don't think any scientists would claim the area of abiogenesis is a solid science yet. Yes, it's all speculation at this point, but there are really no alternatives that could ever make any predictions.

You are missing my point. The way it goes is, you watch a Discovery Channel special on evolution with scientists leading the discussions, you read any textbook on evolution, you read scientists popularizing evolution or origin of life theories, and what you hear is, "life most likely began in the 'soup' of the pre-biotic oceans when macromolecules spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living cell."

That "most likely" is what I object to for reasons I've stated, and can be generalized as not having sufficient evidence of self organization to claim it is most likely. The statement should read, "materialist theory states . . ." and then I'd have absolutely no objection to that.

Originally posted by Eh
Keep in mind that science is only the study of the natural world, and there is no alternative to the idea. Given that life is ultimately chemistry, it seems to be plausible that the very origin of life to has a chemical origin. But that's just the restriction of science.

But now you are doing it too. First of all, life processes are chemistry. No one knows what the "living" part is (nor consciousness either). So when you say "plausible," that shows of your materialist assumption already in place, which is that the missing part will be physical in nature. And although there are not competing physical theories, but there are competing theories.

The very reason the originating principle may be missing is because it is not available to empirical study, and therefore may be metaphysical. If one does a genuinely scholarly study (as opposed to a topical study) of those most successful with metaphysical endeavors, they suggest originating type principles are metaphysical. While dedicated materialists might not like that as evidence, lots of others do.

So, the metaphysical explanation is every bit a plausible in its arena as the materialist one is in its arena. Why then don't scientists just say "in matters of origins, it is unknown" and leave their little materialist assumption of "most likely" out of it?

Originally posted by Eh
The way I see it, science will work the same regardless of whether physicalism or idealism is correct. As such, I don't think there are any theories that conflict with idealism.

I don't understand why you are contrasting physicalism with idealism, unless it refers to something besides what I've said.

Originally posted by Eh
The void that is speculated to have existed prior to the big bang is merely a quantum state where time and space do not exist. That is, a state where nothing exists except the laws of physics.

I am glad to hear that, at least it makes more sense than absolutely nothing. I still don't buy that a quantum fluctuation alone generated the forces and energy needed to create our universe. Right now such fluctuations look only powerful enough to generate virtual particles.

Originally posted by Eh
That's the position I take. Science is only limited to the study of the natural world, regardless of whether or not it is all there is to existence. The question of "something more" does not change how the natural world works, and is really left to philosophy.

Now that is idealistic. If you feel that way, you have my total respect. But it isn't what I read and hear from scientists in the media. And just to be clear, I don't think metaphysical stuff should be mixed with the physical. I think they are two separate things and should be treated that way.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I have so many books that do it, it would take me all day to list them. Everyone from Francis Crick to Daniel Dennett either imply or outright state that no other explanation beyond physical processes are, or will be, required to explain life and consciousness.

It helps to remember that within science, the above is true. That is, a scientific explanation of consciousness must include physical processes. Anything else is metaphysics, and not science.

You are missing my point. The way it goes is, you watch a Discovery Channel special on evolution with scientists leading the discussions, you read any textbook on evolution, you read scientists popularizing evolution or origin of life theories, and what you hear is, "life most likely began in the 'soup' of the pre-biotic oceans when macromolecules spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living cell."

Again, you must realize that this is based only on the search for an scientific explanation of origins. Within the scientific view of the natural world, there obviously are theories that are more plausible than others. But it doesn't mean those views need to be viewed outside a scientific context. Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself.

But now you are doing it too. First of all, life processes are chemistry. No one knows what the "living" part is (nor consciousness either). So when you say "plausible," that shows of your materialist assumption already in place, which is that the missing part will be physical in nature. And although there are not competing physical theories, but there are competing theories.

There are no scientific competing theories. Again, we can make statements about what is most probable, but only within a scientific context.

So, the metaphysical explanation is every bit a plausible in its arena as the materialist one is in its arena. Why then don't scientists just say "in matters of origins, it is unknown" and leave their little materialist assumption of "most likely" out of it?

See above, as the same applies.

I don't understand why you are contrasting physicalism with idealism, unless it refers to something besides what I've said.

It is quite relevant here, because the topic of whether scientists have a physicalist bias or not has come up. I am saying it doesn't matter - science is compatible with both, and thus any scientific claims will not necessarily have a claim in favor of physicalism.

I am glad to hear that, at least it makes more sense than absolutely nothing. I still don't buy that a quantum fluctuation alone generated the forces and energy needed to create our universe. Right now such fluctuations look only powerful enough to generate virtual particles.

That is where inflation comes in.

Now that is idealistic. If you feel that way, you have my total respect. But it isn't what I read and hear from scientists in the media. And just to be clear, I don't think metaphysical stuff should be mixed with the physical. I think they are two separate things and should be treated that way.

It's not idealistic, because I'm merely stating that science is neutral to metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean I physicalism is wrong, it's just that science cannot be used to support such metaphysical positions.
 
  • #19
Eh,
My respect for you grows with every post. Unlike others including many scientists in the media, you say that physical science and metephysics are compatable and not mutually exclusive. I have been trying unsuccessfully to make this point for weeks. My, and I think it's clear, that Les's main objection is the repeated overstatement of the proofs and facts that some scientist claim to have requarding the metaphysical, spiritual or religious.
An example, simply stated is that science says that it can not and does not investigate metaphiysics because its subjective and they can and do only investigate the material. In the next sentence science says that since it does not investigate metaphysics it has no evidence that anything immaterial or metaphysical exists. Then of course the illogical conclusion that since science has no evidence that any thing immaterial or metaphisical exist, science has PROVEN that it DOES NOT EXIST.

This, to me, is the same thing that you claim the New Agers are doing. You are one of the first that I have read in these forums or vertually anywhere else with very few exception who has actually stated the true logical position of science. I salute you.

As for the need of an observer to collapse the probability waves, I'm still not convinced as most of the books were not pop culture science books but were written by very respected scientist and science authors; but then I'm not convinced that ALL is probability waves in the first place and that actual real particles and EM wave actually really do exist in the own right. I personally was trying to show the illogical position of those who claim that math and probability waves are all that exists and was the beginning of the universe.
Please don't ask me what my belief system is. It'll only encourage me.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Eh
It helps to remember that within science, the above is true. That is, a scientific explanation of consciousness must include physical processes. Anything else is metaphysics, and not science.

Eh, I would think you'd know me well enough by now to know I am clear about what science is, but maybe I’ve been ambiguous. We totally agree about what science is supposed to do. If you read my posts carefully, you will see I have not recommended mixing science and metaphysics. There is absolutely nothing better than science for understanding the physical universe. I trust and respect it for that totally, and have little patience for people who want to ignore it so they can substitute crackpot new age ideas.

Obviously there are physical processes involved with life and consciousness, and clearly it is advantageous to understand what they are and how they work. That does not mean, however, one can assume that life and consciousness are essentially physical. When I swim, I am in water, moving in water, and water is all around me. Should I assume my association with water makes me essentially water?

Originally posted by Eh Within the scientific view of the natural world, there obviously are theories that are more plausible than others. But it doesn't mean those views need to be viewed outside a scientific context. . . . It's not idealistic, because I'm merely stating that science is neutral to metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean physicalism is wrong, it's just that science cannot be used to support such metaphysical positions.

You are talking about the ideals of science, I am talking about what is actually going on in the media with certain scientists, and they are definitely not neutral.

Again, we have absolutely no disagreement about scientific ideals. But if science has no answer for the origin of life, why do you think it is okay for them to say to the world (by the various means I’ve already listed) that self-organizing chemistry is “most probable”? They don’t have the evidence, the sort of spontaneous self-organizing chemistry potential they need, even for science standards of claiming “most probable.” In fact, they ain’t even close, so how is it “most probable”?

Without evidence it fails empiricism’s own standard for hypothesizing. It is merely the subjective opinion, unsupported by adequate evidence, of those who believe the universe is purely material. It is therefore biased and unscientific to say most probable.

Originally posted by Eh There are no scientific competing theories. Again, we can make statements about what is most probable, but only within a scientific context.

That is exactly what I said. I said there are no competing scientific theories. But there are competing metaphysical theories. Some people who've taken the time and effort to look within, and I mean serious time and work, have found something other than physical inside themselves; also, some of these serious inner practitioners have felt the non-physical thing within them was part of something much larger outside themselves.

Can science investigate this? No. Can individual human beings investigate this? Yes. Have any highly respected individuals investigated and produced significant results? Yes (e.g., the Buddha). Is that evidence? Yes. But those who are biased toward a material explanation will say, “that’s outside the realm of science,” ignore it as potential evidence, and then say to the world “chemogenesis is most likely” even if they can’t support it with evidence.

What they should say is that they don’t know because these questions of origin of life and consciousness are important. Far too important to tolerate cheating by people feigning objectivity while harboring (and trying to hide) their materialist bias. In this sense, they are being every bit as dishonest as the new age philosophers they love to criticize.

Originally posted by Eh That is where inflation comes in.

I still don’t see it. This universe is packed with energy. How would all that energy be generated by inflating a fluctuation? It seems like it would have the opposite effect actually. Even inflation itself seems like it would require energy to drive it. What’s the origin of this energy?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Royce,

That is the gist of it. It's not only that New Agers make unwarrented conclusions from science, but they misrepresent what the actual theories are about. Whether or not this is deliberate or just an uneducated mistake, is really anyone's guess.

LW Sleeth,

There really doesn't seem to be much disagreement here. The only real clarification is the difference between the tactics of New Agers and the claims made by scientists. While it would not be scientific to make metaphysical claims on the basis of scientific findings alone, it is another thing entirely to lie about what those findings are in the first place.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Tiberius

On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.


What's interesting to me is that everyone here (except for maybe Royce) has accepted what Tiberius has said in the original post as true. Seeing many of the comments on this explains a lot to me because I have had a lot of questions around this very same topic. I too have seen and read many of the books that use QM as a basis for some strange things. And I would wonder why, if this is true, is all of this ignored for the most part in these forums? I find that QM rarely is mentioned in the Philosophy forum. So I set out to try to learn for myself what it means to say that "observation collapses the wave function". What is the meaning of the term "observation" when used by science in making this statement? Surprisingly, this was not easy to find out. It's no wonder there is so many different opinions on what it means. I did eventually find however a good source of information that directly focused on this question and eventually understand it somewhat. Unfortunately, this understanding is not consistent with what Tiberious is saying. Granted it does not support the idea that observation equals Consciousness either. What I learned is that the reason there is so much confusion on this and so little information is because, the definition of "observation" or the mechanism for wave function collapse, is still being studied and determined. This very topic is exactly what is up for interpretation in QM! So, to me, it seems Tiberious has some knowledge that no one else has about how QM works.

The studies that I read about were specifically geared toward trying to understand exactly what it is that collapse the wave function. The studies wanted to see if what Tiberious is claiming is true. Does the collapse happen because of particles bouncing off one another and disturbing the system? The studies were set up in such a way that none of this particle disturbance could take place yet measurements could still be made. (This involved a sophisticated setup of mirrors) And yet, the collapse still happened. It was eventually determined from these studies that the collapse happens as soon as the particle state becomes "knowable". It does not require a conscious observer, but if a conscious observer can come along anytime after the experiment and calculate or "know" the state using information provided by the experiment, then the collapse will happen during the experiment. To be analagous to an algebra equation, I guess you can say that if the equation has 2 unknowns then the answer is unknown. But as soon as the experiment can communicate information about one of those unknown variables, the wave function will collapse. This happens whether or not a conscious observer is present.

While this isn't near as sexy for new agers, it still would be difficult to try to completely separate the implications of these experiments from "conscious" knowledge. This is what ought to be discussed in the philosophy forums on a regular basis. But after reading the comments here I at least understand now why it isn't. Perhaps it should be.

Unfortunately, I do not have a link to any information about these studies right now. I just saw this thread and wanted to post this and see if perhaps others may know what studies I'm talking about and correct me if I've misunderstood them. But I will start looking for some information on this and let you know. I will admit that much of the details of the experiment were clearly over my head but the intention and the results of the experiments seemed clear.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Eh, et al, I am in the process of readings Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell." In Chapter 4 he explains wave function as a result of the uncertainty principle. The wave is a combination of the probability waves of the position and velocity of a particle. It became clear to me as I read it that the particle exists and is real reguardless of the state of the wave function or if an observer is or is not present.
It is just that we nor even God (I'm paraphrasing Hawking here, not introducing God into QM on my own) can know the exact position and momentum of a particle.
The particle(s) does exist, its that we cannot know its state, location or momentum. I obviously misunderstood, confusing the wave form for the particle itself. I'm still not sure about the "Observer." Even after reading Fliptons last post here, the question that immediately came to mind was; how does the particle or event know that it has become 'knowable'? Doest this imply some form of consciousness or nonlocal knowledge as in the EPR paradox?
The more about QM and QED I read and think I'm beginning to understand the more questions come to mind and I haven't even began QFT yet and good book suggestions?
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Royce
It is just that we nor even God (I'm paraphrasing Hawking here, not introducing God into QM on my own) can know the exact position and momentum of a particle.

Hmm well I can certainly understand your confusion over QM. I've had it for some time. This question you've raised is one of the questions I was trying to find out when I was doing all the reading on this. I wanted to know if the uncertainty principal was referring to an actual non-placement of the particle or was it just a statement of our knowledge? If it is the latter, than there's nothing quirky about QM at all. The odd thing is, everything I've read doesn't state what you've just paraphrased from Hawking. I'm not sure how wave-particle duality can be explained if we hold this position. If the particle really does exist in a specific state that we just aren't aware of, then why does it appear to be a wave? Also, why in the world would people be postulating a "Many Worlds" interpretation if the uncertainty only existed in our mind? I even recall reading discussions about how the state of a particle many years in the past changed based on the way it was being observed today.

I think much of the confusion on QM is certainly because it is difficult to grasp. Then this is compounded by people who interpret it to be whatever they want it to be. Its complexity allows this because few people can't call them on it. I've found that many people in this forum try to explain every thing away as if there is no mystery to anything. It's as if they long for the days of classical physics. While on the other hand if you read at the source you see quotes like this...

"Anyone who is not shocked by the quantum theory has not understood it."
- Niels Bohr
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Flipton, You have stated my state of confusion exactly. Depending on who I read at different times I come away with something different. Is the wave form real or just a mathematical model of what we do not know and cannot know. How can a physical particle know when it is being observed or how its being observed.
In the classic two slit experiment when we look for a photon particle we see a photon particle when we look for a photon wave interfering with itself that is what we see. This to me is more than just a mathematical model of positional probability wave forms.
I have read this in too many books to be a misunderstanding. Then we come to Feynman's sum over histories theory, how can one particle travel all possible paths? I can understand it if we're talking macro events where billions of particles are moving from A to B.
It gets worse not better the more I read, even Hawking's over simplification in "Nutshell" can be confusing in light of what I have previously read. I can understand losing information in a black hole and vertual radiation of a black hole but does that mean that the state of the half that is not swallowed by the black cannot be determined at all, ever. He seemed to indicate this when he addressed the EPR paradox. I'll have to reread that to figure out what he's talking about, probably several times.
P-branes or just branes is another matter. Hawking at one point says the branes are nothing more that mathematical models and do not actually exist but gives predictions that seem to be verifiable. He then begins talking as if they really do exist. No wonder I and I'm sure others are confused. Hawking is usually very clear and easy to understand at least in what he's saying even if the concept he's talking about is hard to understand and accept; but, even he can't make QM clear.
In my humple opinion the whole thing stinks of magic and mystism.
Who was it that replied when told and idea, "Yeah, it's wild; but, is it wild enough?"
 
Last edited:
  • #26
You might want to give Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, And the Theory of Everything a read. The Amazon link is at

It's not very deep or long book, but you might find it helpful because it does cover the very topics you've brought up. Specifically, it introduces the concept of a quantum field, the notion that particles are not billiard ball like structures floating around, and how real the wave function actually is. It will certain help with some confusion.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Royce
Flipton, You have stated my state of confusion exactly.

Yes, I understand exactly what you're talking about. I can find what appears to be contadicting information everywhere. But our questions appear to be the same so at least I know it isn't just me. It looks as if the book that EH has suggested might be helpful. It also looks as if it is agreeing with my last post. I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls allows what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics, I think there should be a lot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, I understand exactly what you're talking about. I can find what appears to be contadicting information everywhere. But our questions appear tt be the same. It looks as if the book that EH has suggested is agreeing with my last post. I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls lends itself to what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics In my humble opinion, I think there should be a lot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.

Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Tiberius
Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.

OK that's clear. But I think we still don't agree on the point of the word "observation". Your explanation in the original post is not consistent with much that I've read on the topic. So if I can rephrase, I think there is a lot more to the concept of "observation" then was mentioned in the original post. You can read all of my earlier replies to see why I think that and we can go from there. If I'm mis-reading everything I've read on QM then I would love to get that resolved.
 
  • #30
I've been away and busy for awhile and apologize for the late response. If I'm resurecting a better of dead thread I also apologize.
I wanted to tell both Eh and flipton theI found the book on Amazon and ordered it, should get it later this week.

I do think that my understanding is correct that the observer is the scientist setting up the experiement and doing the measurements is as much of the results of the experiment as the detectors or measuring device and the wave/particle being measured. I want to say the it was Neils Bohr himself who said just that. If I am wrong about who said that please correct me.
Flipton, I think that your right that the wave form is more than just our inability to know the exact position and momentum of a particle for the same reasons.
Whilke some of the books and thinking may be out of date now the last one that I read of QM was published in 2000 and said explicitly that the two slit experiments was still the main mystery of QM.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Royce
I've been away and busy for awhile and apologize for the late response. If I'm resurecting a better of dead thread I also apologize.
I wanted to tell both Eh and flipton theI found the book on Amazon and ordered it, should get it later this week.

Well, as far as I'm concerned this is not a dead thread. It seems Tiberius unloaded on all the new agers and then scrammed :smile: Because I have not agreed with what he is saying and yet this thread is sinking down the page :frown:

I think this topic should continue to be discussed and I think it should come up more often in other threads. It is apparent from this thread that few people understand it so maybe that's why it rarely gets mentioned.

If you run across some interesting things in that book and want to discuss them please start new threads on it. I am always interested and maybe we can get some others to participate. Depending on the nature of the question the thread may belong in either the physics forum or this one.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Tiberius
I've seen this a lot in people's post on Quantum Mechanics and just to clarify this common misconception...

QUANTUM MECHANICS AND THE TALK ABOUT "OBSERVERS" AND "OBSERVATIONS" HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS OR LIFE OR LIVING THINGS "OBSERVING" THINGS.

In QM when they talk about observations collapsing wave functions, they are talking about devices that fire particles and measure the way they bounce back to measure the traits of OTHER particles. When this happens, those particles being fired into the system disturb that very system - that is ALL that is meant by "observation". It doesn't include or have anything to do with consciousness or anything mystical that people are always trying to attach to it. It simply means that when you fire a particle into another particle, it will disturb the particle being hit - basic common sense.

On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them. No consciousness affects any of this in the slightest and the universe would operate just as it does, even if you removed all life and consciousness from it.

People have taken that unfortunate choice of word "observation" and interpreted it to mean something to do with the awareness of conscious or intelligent beings, and it is simply a purely mechanical function having nothing to do with this. From this misinterpretation of the word "observation" they come up with all sorts of "mind over matter" silliness and claim that QM backs them up when it does nothing of the sort.

So, once and for all, let everyone here know that QM as a science has nothing to do with conscious beings or awareness.

This was explained on another thread and...I got it.

Tell me, did you come out of the womb with all the knowledge you have now? Or did you acquire it bit by bit?

This is how I learn compassion. Now, when I am tempted to put down lesser lights than mine, I'll remember how it felt when one who is better endowed between the ears than I attempted to discredit outright certain avenues of thought because of one misconception.

Thanks.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Fliption
Well, as far as I'm concerned this is not a dead thread. It seems Tiberius unloaded on all the new agers and then scrammed :smile: Because I have not agreed with what he is saying and yet this thread is sinking down the page :frown:

I think this topic should continue to be discussed and I think it should come up more often in other threads. It is apparent from this thread that few people understand it so maybe that's why it rarely gets mentioned.

If you run across some interesting things in that book and want to discuss them please start new threads on it. I am always interested and maybe we can get some others to participate. Depending on the nature of the question the thread may belong in either the physics forum or this one.

Despite my reaction to the condescending tone of its orginator, I APPRECIATE this thread. I'm here to learn...and it will never be through MATH. I don't consider myself a "New Ager" and "metaphysics" is not a four-letter word. In fact -- as I have posted elsewhere -- it's quite RESPECTABLE according to "The American Heritage Dictionary":

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe (cosmology).

If my thinking leads me to conjecture that the Universe is conscious while another mind conjurs up "Superstrings"...well, that's part of the PROCESS of EXPLORING the POSSIBILITIES. And, who knows, in the end, we may BOTH be right!

COOPERATION has proven to be a more effective (and enlightened?) way than "territorialism" to conduct a society...or a relationship. Perhaps we -- the human race -- would make better progress in learning about the Universe if the left-brainers and the right-brainers would "make nice"...sharing info in each other's languages in the spirit of mutual support...and ADMIRATION.

Cause I sure as HECK admire left-brainers...even the smug ones.

..tho I find the humane ones -- like Tom -- more useful .
 
Last edited:
  • #34


Originally posted by Tom
And of course, it doesn't help matters when dimwits like Frijtof Capra write "literature" like Tao of Physics. People read that garbage and think they actually know quantum mechanics.

Oh well.
 
  • #35
M. Gaspar,
Here all this time I thought Tiberius was chewing me out. Welcome to the QM Dimwit Club of PF. So far we have three self admitted members. I nominate Flipton for president.
I got the book but haven't had a chance to more than look at it. I thought it funny that it is written by Gribbin, one of my favorite authors who writes scientific books for us nonscientifists. AMoung his other books that I've read was "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" which is where I got a lot of my information on QM from.
He is one of the pop-culture authors that Tiberius accused me of reading. Don't you love the irony of it.
But that usually what happens, to me any way. Everytime I pop off about something I usually end up with my foot in my mouth.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
866
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
934
Replies
7
Views
839
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
813
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
5K
Back
Top