quantum physics holds that events don't take on a concrete reality until they are observed by a concious entity. does this hold true and why or why not?
It would be truer to say that you cannot make absolute predictions about the results of measurements on a quantum system, only probabilistic ones. If you want more detail, I'll be happy to explain further. However, if you're asking about consciousness and what constitutes a measurement, I'll leave it for someone else!
I believe that "existence" (materiality) in 4 dimensional spacetime is dependent on measurement or observation, but not necessarily by a conscious entity. Quantum interaction is the key. IMHO (just a theory of mine), a photon, for example, must interact with something to present itself.. prior to that it is just an occilating field in spacetime with potential. A single photon that travels indefinitely in spacetime with no outside interaction would never have a material existence.
true, but some what ducks the question of "reality" PRIOR TO ANY MEASUREMENT. My view, but not a demonstrable one, is that mixed states are "real" - just impossible for humans who only directly experience the non- quantum world to ever feel good about. I.e. to take an extreme but well established case: Yes a single photon really does "pass thru" two different paths, which can be very widely separated, although some physicists follow Bohm's view that only the "guiding wave" does so. I like the one photon in two different places view mainly as I know photons and electrons exist, and am not so sure that their "guiding waves" do exist. In another thread, a few months back I expressed my concern about how each electron's guiding wave recognizes and guides ONLY its own electron if all electrons are identical. Certainly possible to make two "guiding waves" and their electrons occupy the same space together. I am enough of a crackpot in the cognitive science area to have spoken of the consciousness part, in earlier threads (Have my own theory of it, which makes "free will" at least possible.) but like you will let other try to tell what is a “measurement.” (All I can say is that it is something outside of quantum theory, drug in to make the Copenhagen school views have any sense, which they surely must as nothing else is as accurate.)
I believe, but am not sure, that confusion is often caused due to misleading jargon used by experts in articles dumbed down for the non-expert. I do not think that any expert claims that various quantum entities do not exist until they are observed and/or measured. It is various properties of quantum entities that cannot be said to exist until measured. In experiments measuring the spin, polarization, or some other property of a quantum particle, it is the value of the spin, polarization, et cetera that does not exist until measured. The particle itself exists prior to having properties measured. Furthermore I think that properties of quantum entities become actualized when some quantum event has an effect at the non-quantum or classical world level. In any experiment, this effect typically involves a conscious observer paying attention to some measuring device. If the experimenter left the room before the measurement was noticed by him, I believe that the event and measured value (though unknown) could be assumed to have occurred. I believe that the effect of a conscious observer is erroneously given credit for causing the actualization of the value of some quantum property. I always thought that the Schrodinger’s Cat controversy was a bit silly. The effect of the experiment on the cat actualized the event causing or not causing its death. Cats cannot be in some limbo state, neither dead nor alive, although quantum properties can be in some state we do not understand, and which cannot be modeled by classical level phenomena. It can make sense to say that some yes/no quantum property is neither zero nor one until measured, but it does not make sense to make analogous statements about classical world entities like cats. The phrase collapse of the wave function always seemed to me to be misleading jargon. The wave function specifies a set of probabilities relating to possible locations of a quantum entity. When a measurement is made (Id est: When the quantum entity affects the classical world), one of the possibilities becomes actualized. I consider this analogous to a table of probabilities for dice throws. Before the dice are thrown, you have a list of probabilities for various possible totals. When the dice are thrown and a total of 6 is observed, one could say The table collapsed to 6 rather than saying that a 6 was thrown. I see no reason to view the so-called collapse of the wave function as more mysterious than the event of a dice throw resulting in some particular total. I think it is handy jargon used to suggest weirdness relating to quantum entities that cannot be modeled by classical level events like throwing dice. BTW: The properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate make it clear that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not a statement relating to limitations of measurement technology. The Principle really claims (with good reason) that a quantum entity cannot have both a precise position and a precise velocity (actually a precise momentum) at the same time.
I am not convinced that your assessment of quantuim mechanical phsyics is accurate. Are stars that are located within super galatic clusters on the other side of the universe, that are most certainly unobserved,real? If you adopt your own dogmatic QM forms are you able and willing to demonstrate a reasonable and rational justification? Think about it. Would you ever allow yourself to be convinced that what you say is true, or do you possess the scientific integrity to form your own understanding? Do9es it not seem ludicrous a to conclude that the laws of physics are such that galaxies are nopt "real" until an organic observer sees one and then, "Eureka, the galaxy is born?" If you are truly determined to get to the bottom of your quest (or the height of your windmill) you must study JS Bell who introduced the concept of nonlocal force centers. Fundamentally, any QM model that is void in specific and expressed inclusion of nonlocal parameters the QM is incomplete. Geistkiesel
Excellent post Dinosaur! I might just add that the early experiments more than 70 years ago (I think) on cosmic rays had stacks (really more like cubes) of photo graphic films (on very thin glass plates - I think). Thus, if the balloon functioned well etc, the quantity of data (tracks in the film, various nuclear events induced etc.) could be enormous and no computers or automatic "track followers" etc. existed back then. I bet there are "observations" still recorded on some of those old plates that have never been observed by any "consciousness." “Consciousness” has nothing to do with “observation” of quantum mechanics and it is very likely (MHO) that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with “consciousness” although that is not 100% certain.
About: "quantum physics holds that events don't take on a concrete reality until they are observed by a concious entity." You asked: No, not true, or even related to what quantum physics states. (Quantum physics make no statements about God or "concrete reality" or such things. It is only a computational system, that gives amazingly accurate results.) The author of that does not know what quantum physics states or understand much of it. Read Dinosaur's post. He has correct view of this - and put it clearly in short post!
this quote was takin from a novel by robert j. sawyer called "calculating god" its very interesting book but i was a little questionable of its scientific reliability, although its fairly accurate on many other points. it think it implies "god" as the concious entity. never that it was organic, silly ethnocentrist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! it also says quantum fluctuations without space. is this possible?
