Talk:Measurement causes collapse/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Measurement_causes_collapse/archive_1

Listed above is the archive of the discussion thus far.

_________

Thank you, that does represent a starting point for research, but not one that speaks favorably for this particular article. [1], for example, deals with a measurement with a result of 0 rather than no measurement at all; [2] merely uses the word "collapse" and not in the sense of wavefunction collapse. Certainly tests of the Jaynes-Cummings model and quantum Zeno effects are interesting in connection with wavefunction collapse, and they should be reflected in the appropriate articles. However, as far as I can tell, these sources don't make any claims evaluative of, or otherwise concerning, an interpretation of quantum mechanics involving conscious observers. I can't stress WP:NOR enough here. Melchoir (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've at least established that it's not really about research or citation. But rather, your personal view of world. Using your logic there would need to be an article that shows measurement is possible without a conscious observer. Where is your evidence for this position?

Please cite a single article explaining how measurement, or any symbol, can be interpreted without a conscious mind to contextualize that information. Do you think the alphabet has meaning outside of our consciousness? You must? Otherwise you would have to cite to an article that says a conscious mind is not required to make sense of the alphabet.

Of course, no such article is required since it's something we know a priori.

And that's why we don't debate whether dreams or migraine headaches require consciousness. For some reason you seem to think common sense doesn't apply to your view of the world.

Lordvolton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is just bunk. I begin to suspect that by "measurement" you are thinking of information processable by a human being. If that is the case, anything you say about needing interpretation by a conscious mind is just a misleadingly phrased tautology. If, on the other hand, by "measurement" of an observable one means something like an energetic coupling of that observable to a much greater number of degrees of freedom from a system closer to thermal equilibrium than it is to a pure state, then your whole discussion of "interpretation" and "consciousness" is out of place. Which approach is more appropriate for representation on Wikipedia as the default, and which better represents what is intended by physics writers, are questions answerable only by researching reliable sources on the philosophy of science.

For proof of concept, see [3]. Most of the hits decline to define what they mean by measurement, but "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology" gives what I think is a reasonably standard definition of measurement, and one that does not a priori involve interpretation. Note that this single passage for a single source does not prove that your ideas are "wrong", but it does prove that they are sufficiently non-trivial so as to require citation. Melchoir (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I, by no means, am not an expert in this scope, but I am a thinker, a person who likes puzzles, the universe and everything. Lordvolton stated "Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I submit that what you are separating CCC and the act of measuring by a Conscious mind... but that is the same as a CCC is inherently measuring all things, contextualizing, spacializing, etc... therefore the act of measuring is already covered by CCC... am I wrong? --Pmedema (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The CCC crowd assumes that it's consciousness causing the collapse. We know from experimental evidence that measurement apparently causes collapse (or the prevention of collapse via the Quantum Zeno Effect), so there is little debate about that. A second question, which we might want to cover in greater detail within the article, is whether measurement requires consciousness.

And thirdly, whether collapse occurs without measurement.

There are interesting conundrums within all of those concepts. I don't personally believe consciousness is required for collapse, but I do believe measurement causes collapse and that the folks who wish to promote "consciousness" as a requirement for collapse deserve more respect than they're getting from critics whose view of the world prevents them from allowing others to express alternative ideas.

Ideas with plenty of citations, for those critics who think it's not a scholarly endeavor.

It can be confusing because saying "measurement causes collapse" and "consciousness is required for measurement" is not the same thing as saying "consciousness causes collapse" because collapse may occur without measurement. And that's probably a point we need to clarify in the article.

Lordvolton (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "collapse may occur without measurement" is essentially meaningless because "measurement" is not well enough defined to make such distinctions. A measurement in quantum mechanics is just something that causes a collapse.

But collapse occurs constantly, presumably. If not, what is doing the measuring?

Lordvolton (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether conscious observation is necessary for measurement effects like the quantum Zeno effect is empirically testable, and the answer is no. For example, in the double slit experiment, placing a detector at one slit causes the interference pattern to disappear, but it's not necessary for anyone to look at the detector's output for this to happen. Even if the wires from the detector to the display are cut so that the outcome of the measurement is never seen or recorded, the interference pattern still disappears. -- BenRG (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How do they know that the interference pattern disappeared if they never look? Isn't looking at the result a measurement of sorts?

Lordvolton (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They look at the collecting plate, while never looking at the slit detector. Melchoir (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the collecting plate doesn't cause collapse? Lordvolton (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at the slits. Melchoir (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton, it is funny how they continue to accuse these concepts as being ignorant when they continue to counter only using their own ignorance. Melchoir and BenRG, you contest that collecting the data at the slits collapses the wave function entirely, instead of reducing the possible states as would be required anyway by CCC, without any scientific reason to believe this is the case. If you would like to learn more about the experiment you are beginning to arrive at, I would suggest you read up on the quantum eraser and the delayed choice quantum eraser. That gets you closer to the experiment you’re looking for, but still not to any real evidence that a wave function can collapse before encountering consciousness. Nhall0608 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the results with the delayed choice quantum eraser are interpreted by some as meaning that past events can be influenced by observation in the present. I personally think a simpler explanation is that everything still existed in the form of a wave function until that observation took place, contradicting your conjecture that the wave function was completely reduced at the slits. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By doing a cursory search http://books.google.com/books?q=%22quantum+eraser%22+consciousness, I find "Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem", which presents the quantum eraser in the context of Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness and panpsychism; "Science, Education, Health and Consciousness", which applies it to quantum consciousness; "The Hidden Pattern", which makes connections to psychokinesis and time travel; "Toward a Science of Consciousness", which discusses the advanced action, destiny state, or two-vector formalism, however it is named. Note that I have linked to the relevant Wikipedia articles, many of which already exist, and some of which do not. In these articles, it would be acceptable, even encouraged, to note that the quantum eraser is claimed to be relevant, to explain why, and to cite the appropriate sources as evidence. Melchoir (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

_____________

I modified the opening paragraph to better frame the goals of the article.

Lordvolton (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Forward

Despite the disappointing lack of professionalism displayed by at least two admins (see afd discussion) I think it's time we put the past behind us and started thinking how we can work together to improve this article moving forward. Lordvolton (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is kept on AfD, the first step would be to find a source verifying the first sentence of the article. Assuming that this step is possible, the next step would be to read this source and discover when the interpretation was first formulated, and by whom; who coined its name, and when; what evaluations have been made about it, etc., and then record those facts in the article as well.

However, these are both nontrivial assumptions. I don't think anyone will find a source, since I don't think it exists. And the article will not necessarily by kept either. AfD lasts five days, and this one is nearly done. Extrapolating on the progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 28, the current AfD will probably be closed within 24 hours if not much sooner. Melchoir (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

___________

Nontrivial assumptions are addressed below. How much research have you done aside from assuming that this article is completely bereft of scholarly sources?

The onus is on you to present reasons why we must constantly defend against your perceptions of the world as more meaningful than everyone else. How would you like it if the minute you assembled an article all of us nominated it for immediate deletion and demanded non-trivial sources without raising a finger to help you?

I'd wager you wouldn't like it. You need to consider your actions and how how you would feel if they were applied in equal measure to your efforts.

And perhaps then you will be embraced by the rest of us as an editorial colleague, rather than just a critic.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12446.x

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/mm/2003/00000001/00000001/art00004

“The 'subjective reduction' interpretation of measurement in quantum physics proposes that the collapse of the wave-packet, associated with measurement, is due to the consciousness of human observers. A refined conceptual replication of an earlier experiment, designed and carried out to test this interpretation in the 1970s, is reported. Two improvements are introduced. First, the delay between pre-observation and final observation of the same quantum event is increased from a few microseconds in the original experiment to one second in this replication. Second, rather than using the final observers' verbal response as the dependent variable, his early brain responses as measured by EEG are used. These early responses cover a period during which an observer is not yet conscious of an observed event. Our results support the 'subjective reduction' hypothesis insofar as significant differences in the brain responses of the final observer are found, depending on whether or not the pre-observer has been looking at the quantum event . Alternative 'normal' explanations are discussed and rejected. It is concluded that the present results do justify further research along these lines.” - abstract

Lordvolton (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already helped you more than you seem to understand. And now I'm done. Melchoir (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)\

This is sick, Lordvolton has provided every bit of sources asked for to show this is a significant topic and deserve to be covered, instead of covered up to appease the ideologies of certain wiki members. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Eraser Experiment

I inserted some placeholder information on the Quantum Eraser Experiment, we'll need to tie it more specifically into the issues raised earlier. Specifically, how this experiment complicates matters when determining when quantum collapse took place and whether the measurement caused collapse prior to a conscious observer. Lordvolton (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)