Here is a nice explanation of WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE, a concept from Quantum Mechanics,
Is Consciousness the ultimate wave?
Is Self the collapse of consciousness wave function?
Is Thought the collapse of self wave function?
Is Reality the collapse of thought wave function?
Is Physical universe the collapse of reality wave function?
The ultimate observer or looker is, of course, Unknowable. 🙂
Like the last digit of the decimal rendition of pi.
Because neither exists as we know existence.
.
Added October 28, 2012:
WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE = MANIFESTING
What is there before manifesting may only be speculated upon. Speculation then manifests.
So all manifesting may simply be preceded by speculation or visualization.
See AXIOM ZERO
.
Addition (12/31/18)
The assumption in the following video is that electrons are like little balls. This assumption is incorrect. Electrons are waves that are simply quite substantial. As far as “observer” goes, they have an instrument there, whose electric field interferes with the experiment. Please see,
Einstein’s Light Quanta
.
Comments
Vinaire!
Sorry about the first two links (suggestions from youtube) trying to fix them.
will get back with you soon.
Lorraine
Hello Vinaire,
First of all Vinaire I am very sorry that links two and three need to come off your blog .I am not tech savvy enough to take off links 2 and 3. youtube suggestions on the side are very inappropriate, although the two videos are very informative. I hope you can remove them from your blog. Look forward to sharing with you more.
Sincerely,
Lorraine
Lorraine,
I have removed those two links after trying to fix them. If one googles “Science and Buddhism Video,” I believe, one can find those videos with a non-offensive background. I shall leave this note for those who are interested. I still have to find time to watch and then comment on those videos.
Thanks for your effort.
Vinaire
Because Pi is irrational and because this irrationality resides within a finite system, I can declare consistently that Pi can be stated accurately to whatever depth of accuracy that one wishes to run the calculation. The last digit of Pi is simply the final degree of understanding that one wishes to achieve. No more or less.
Because the calculation runs on infinitely and yet resides within the finite system then it follows that the definition of infinite falls within the finite.
Thus understandings that place the infinite outside the finite need to be looked at again.
If one did, they might come up with another look at existence being conditional upon a certain and defined frame of reference within the finite system.
There is no reason that I know of to believe that consciousness must reside within any certain size or frame of reference, is there?
If you wish to state that “The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is ‘unknowable.’ https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-816,” This is a false statement.
Unknowable is a belief, no more and no less.
Please elaborate on “this irrationality resides within a finite system.”
I don’t quite get it.
.
Yes, Pi has a finite value. But that value cannot be expressed using a digital system, no matter how fine you make it. That is the definition of irrationality.
Irrationality proves that there is no precisely delineated unit no matter how small you may imagine. This may be extended to the idea that nothing can be defined exactly.
This goes along with the idea of as-isness, which says that a precise defintion of an idea leads to the disappearance of the idea itself. This means that the exact definition of everything is essentially nothing.
And that means that everything has been brought into existence through visualization. Everything is an additive to nothing.
And nothing cannot be defined because there is nothing to define.
.
Irrationality occurs where a precise ratio (or comparison) has not been made. Thus, there is an inconsistency.
No, for me that is an inconsistent look at the notion of inconsistency. The idea of whole numbers and even ratios for me is more mental than the irratio, for it is the irrationality which seems prevalent and the more basic standard of this universe.
Begin with finite using the ratio of Pi is > 3.14 and < 3.142. Then begin to look the infinite quality of the unending and non-repeating decimal expression.
It is irrational to have a circle whose diameter or whose circumference we may not know.
It is irrational to have a right triangle with sides of "1" and a hypotenuse whose length we may not know and yet the triangle is finitely "there."
The Mandelbrot fractal lies within finite bounds and yet is unbounded.
The "irrationality" of these examples points to apparent paradox of how can infinite qualities lie within finite systems?
Since I don't believe in paradoxes, I am leaning toward a different major premise: Infinity lies within the bounds of finite.
The transcendental lesson is that understanding has depth, and that we can understand as deeply as we are willing to look.
Infinity doesn’t mean “abundance of quantity.”
Infinity simply means “without boundary or limit.”
.
Our minds meet. To understand that the rabbit hole is as deep as you want to look is transcendental.
I am very happy about that. 🙂
.
Here is a better explanation of wave function collapse from Wikipedia:
“Even if the source intensity is turned down so that only one particle (e.g. photon or electron) is passing through the apparatus at a time, the same interference pattern develops over time. The quantum particle acts as a wave when passing through the double slits, but as a particle when it is detected. This is a typical feature of quantum complementarity: a quantum particle will act as a wave when we do an experiment to measure its wave-like properties, and like a particle when we do an experiment to measure its particle-like properties. Where on the detector screen any individual particle shows up will be the result of an entirely random process.”
.
Yes, a lot of my thinking turns on this quality.
The key to the double slit experiment is that the slit width is less than the wavelength of the light passing through it.
If a photon is “spring-like” instead of “wave-like” (just a matter of another dimension to describe it as I described here: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/guilt/#comment-1475) then all observations of the single and double slit experiments are explainable by the same theory: the reason for diffraction is the interaction of the spring-like character of the photon with an electron in the matter compositing the edge of the slit. More interaction (coupling of the “springs” – photon spring and electron spring) on one side of the slit than the other will cause the photon to be redirected in the direction of coupling.
The same applies if you are shooting electrons instead of photons. The electron will be oscillating between a potential wave (spring) condition and a potential matter condition as it passes the slits. It will interact with the slit if it is wavelike (spring-like). I will sail through if it is particle-like. It is probabilistic, not influenced by consciousness.
Source?
@Chris
Not sure which item is source of the request for source. For the double slit experiment, it works best when thinner than a wavelength simply because all photons then interact with edges. A wider slit will work but only photons interacting with the edge will be diffracted. Photons passing through the open area of the slit and more than a wavelength from the edge will pass straight on to the target. All that means is that the diffraction pattern will be weaker with a wider slit.
Source references showing the wavefront as planar before the slit and circular after the slit can give an incorrect view of the action of light. Light is packet based (photons) not planar waves like in a liquid wave pool. The diffraction caused by photons coupling with the slit edges is what gives the apparency of a circular or spherical wavefront.
I wonder what the “edges” are made up of… electrons? electro-magnetic field?
.
V., “I wonder what the “edges” are made up of… electrons? electro-magnetic field?”
The perimeter of any neutral surface would be an electron field. Assuming the edge of the slit to not be additionally charged by an external potential, the field should be uniform. If the slit edge was knife-like and honed to an atom thickness at the edge, the purest display of simple refraction (by light coupling with the electron field) would occur. If the slit edge has thickness there will be a tendency for the photon to go caroming around. This would cause some blurring of the diffraction pattern.
The double-slit experiment exists primarily as a thought experiment. It has not been carried out in its entirety as an actual experiment. So, the “results” broadcasted are conjectures.
A photon is like a long snake. An electron is a much shorter snake. Neither of them are like “golf ball,” or spherical, as particles are generally assumed to be.
When detected, even a snake makes a point like imprint. It is incorrectly assumed that a “snake like” particle need not interact with the edges of the slit.
Yes. There seems to be a fundamental waveform which belies simplistic categorisation as a particle or a wave.
It seems that it is the electromagnetic field that condenses into electrons, protons and neutrons.This condensation seems to be in the form of standing waves that double, triple, multiple on themselves as in a fractal.
The electromagnetic wave seems to be a characteristic of space. See
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/math-imitating-life/
.
Chris wrote: “it came to me that “anything at all at any time at all” may be collapsed out of the infinite potential of the field of wave function. What “governs” is not “what is possible” because everything is possible. What governs is what has been agreed upon which agreements together create the consensus reality. “
Two waves of same wave-length travelling in opposite directions form a standing wave when their phases happen to match.
Similarly, two datum that are equal and opposite to each other, may lock together and form an enduring “standing wave” of consideration.
So, this physical phenomenon of “standing wave” may extend to the mental sphere.
.
Any fixed idea or belief may be enduring because of this locking property of “standing wave.”
So, what about this belief in a benevolent God? We have two waves here:
(1) The wave of suffering.
(2) The wave of hope that one can escape this suffering.
The second wave is opposite of the first beacuse “hope for escape” will never make the suffering disappear. The two seem to have the same “wave-length” but in opposite directions.
So, they lock up as “eternal hope versus eternal fear.” This seems to give birth to the belief in God. God would be of no use if there were no suffering.
.
Collapse = free waves transforming into standing waves.
.
Vinay,
I love this video from What the Bleep movie. I still wonder how can we measure which slit the electron goes through without interacting with it? Is it the detector or the observer collapsing the wave? I wrote to Dr. Fred Wolf and ne sent me a reply but I didn’t really understand it. 😦
Could you please post the link to the video, and also the reply from Dr. Fred Wolf!
Thanks.
I emailed the reply but will also post it here after I clean out all the extra stuff.
Yes, I got the email, but it does need cleaning up as you said.
.
Here is the email chain I had with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf a few years back:
Email 1
Subject: Observing the electron in the double slit experiment
Dr. Wolf, I just read your book “Dr. Quantum Presents: “User’s Guide to Your Universe”.
Just how does one observe an electron anyway? How do we know which slit the electron went through and wouldn’t that mean that we interfered with that electron by observing it with some device? Thanks
Answer: Good questions! Electrons are measured by electronic counting devices such as cathode ray tubes or Geiger counters and I would imagine today by any number of new devices. These particles are known by their electric charge and mass> and spin or magnetic moments. Hence there are a number of different ways to make these measurements. By putting a magnetic field behind one of the slits we will change the pattern of electronic hits on a sensitive screen. If we don’t know which slit, we see an interference pattern. If we can determine which slit, we don’t. For more read my book Taking the Quantum Leap and go to my web site for more information about quantum physics.
Email 2
Subject: Re: Observing the electron in the double slit experiment
Thank you for your earlier correspondence and I hope you are doing well.
I was speaking to someone recently that does not see how there is a need for a conscious observer to collapse the QWF. He says that the detector (the magnetic field used to detect the electron) causes the collapse without the need for any consciousness. So do we need consciousness at all here?
Thanks again
Answer
Actually he is incorrect here. This is often confused by laypersons who think machines obey laws different from quantum physics. They don’t. All matter obeys the laws of quantum physics. I am happy to clarify this for you and him. Read this description carefully. It will explain the differences.
Here is the complete double slit explanation with some simply math concepts but no actual math calculations. If you understand this it will clear up the observer effect in quantum physics. Why not look at the animation on the 2-slit experiment. See http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DS_sm2.wmv
for the animation. Most explanations of the 2-slit experiment fail to go into the interaction of a measuring device with the particle before it arrives at the screen.
Let me try to explain this according to quantum physics. Although it appears to not make sense, it is not the camera that makes the big change–it is the observer that does it. Let me use a shorthand to describe this.
Let E be the electron, (so E1 means electron at slit 1, and so on), S1 slit 1, S2 slit 2, and C the camera. Now when the camera is off or not interacting with the slits we have the following situation.
The quantum physics state of the whole system S is (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C. The two possibilities E1×S1 and E2×S2 interfere with each other–they add up their states. This is known as the superposition principle of quantum physics. The camera C does not affect each possibility separately even though it multiplies their sum. This is just like classical physics where you compute the probability of throwing a dice to get a six and flipping a coin to get heads. You simply multiply the probabilities 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/12.
When the observer comes into the picture he sees the whole quantum physics (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C state and hence sees the interference pattern after many electrons hit the screen. Since C didn’t interact with either slit that pattern is the same as if the camera were not there at all. Now turn the camera on. If the camera captures a picture, its state will change according to either possibility C1 or C2 where C1 means it went through slit-1 and C2 means it went through slit-2. The whole system is now (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2).
Now there are two possibilities (I) and (II):
(I) The observer doesn’t look at the picture in the camera. The interference has been affected by the camera being in place and the camera’s state has changed. If the observer were to observe this whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2), and not look to see what the camera recorded, he still wouldn’t know which slit the electron went through and yet the whole pattern on the screen would change due to the presence of the active camera. He would only know that something changed in the experiment.
According to quantum physics the probability for having the camera on and the observer not looking at its result is (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) x (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2)* [* means complex-conjugate]. This gives the probability to be |(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 + rapid interference terms. The interference terms are nearly zero due to the complexity of having many particles in the film of the camera and the result seems just about random. This would appear on the screen as a jiggle of overlapping single slit possibilities with little interference.
(II) The observer does look at the picture in the camera. Since he looks at the camera he will see either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2 and depending on which camera state he observes, he will “see” a slightly different result on the screen for where the electron went. If he would see C1, it went through slit-1, if he would see C2 it went through slit-2 and there is no interference any more. The observed pattern, either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2, would be slightly different than the whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) although this would be very hard to detect.
Here is the reason it is hard to detect. In (II) while the camera is recording the result yielding (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) over and over again and he looks at the camera each time and then waits for a lot of looked at electrons to arrive on the screen, he would find an overlap of probabilities for each result. It’s like asking for the total
probability of finding a single die with either the number 2 or the number 3 showing. You add the separate probabilities of 1/6 + 1/6.= 1/3. So if you were to look at each camera after the camera took its picture each time you would get the probability to be |(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 without the interference terms. This is very much like the result in (I) where the result is the same except for the rapid interference terms that are there from not looking at the camera. Since they are rapid they average out to a fuzzy result.
So ultimately the observer causes the change in the pattern although in this case the human observer plays a small role. This doesn’t necessarily mean that putting the camera in place and turning it on doesn’t change things–it does. This state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) (camera on) is not the same as (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C (camera off).
It makes little difference to do it this way or use two cameras or even just one camera. If the single camera is on behind slit 1, e.g., and nothing is recorded, the electron did not go through that slit and the observation that it did not also destroys the interference pattern because we then know it went through slit 2 since we don’t see it go through slit 1. That is (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2) becomes either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2 thus also destroying the pattern.
For more you might enjoy reading about quantum physics in several books listed on my website such as Taking the Quantum Leap, Parallel Universes, The Yoga of Time Travel, and 0thers. I would also suggest you read the Feynman lectures vol. 3.
In summary the observer destroys the interference between the possibilities. The camera doesn’t. Note in particular even the observation that an electron did not go through a slit produces the same result as observing that it did.
For more on this See for examples:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00713.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler’s_delayed_choice_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
Email 3 To: fred alan wolf
Thanks Dr. Wolf
When you mentioned “complex-conjugate” I suspect you are speaking of vector math with complex numbers. This is where I get lost having very little background in that area.
Anyway, What I think you said was that the electron acts as a wave function and can go through both slits and thus interfere with itself and create the interference pattern when it reaches the back screen. Even with the camera off I would think you would get the same result?
What I don’t understand is that when the camera or detector is on but nobody is looking I would expect to see the non-interference pattern of 2 bands on the back screen since the camera was collapsing the electron wave. Has the 2 slit experiment been done with the camera on but nobody looking vs. camera on and looking?
This was not clear in the “Down the Rabbit Hole” animation.
Thanks again for you patience
Answer:
That was the whole point of what I sent you. The off camera does nothing to the interference pattern. The on camera with no observer doesn’t collapse the quantum wave function. All it does is mess up the interference pattern. The on camera with an observer does collapse the quantum wave function so there is no interference pattern. Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
My final email to Dr Wolf
Thanks for the guide down the rabbit hole.
Kickass post Fred. Thanks for saving and sharing that. Ditto to Vin.
Wow! That’s a lot of work you did in cleaning it up. I shall be going over it thoroughly. I don’t know how much I’ll understand though.
.
I hope you two can make sense out of the example because I am still scratching my head about it.
Let me start out with the observation that, in my opinion, the wave function collapse has something to do with the fractal of BEING.
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/khtk-8a-the-god-inconsistency/#comment-2204
Now the fun starts! 🙂
.
Fred, about the double-slit experiment, your key question appears to be:
“Is it the detector or the observer collapsing the wave?”
Did that question really get answered?
.
In my opinion no, but I got lost in the math.
I would think that any detector would interact with the QWF and collapes the wave into a particle whether I was looking or not.
Another friend of mine (Ivan) thinks the same way.
.
If it is the observer then we decide the outcome by either looking or not looking.
But you are measuring in either case and that amounts to looking. See
.
.
I got lost in the math but Dr. Wolf says it;s the obserrver.
What I think he is saying is that the electron goes through slit 1 and slit 2 and both slits and neither at the same time and when observes the state then the QWF collapes into one possibility but this is too far down the rabbit hole for me.
Fred, I finally got around to reading the explanations from Dr. Wolf. These explanations are simply asserting what you are questioning. His explanations are not answering the question. His video is designed simply to get a reaction. How does one know what it is when one is not looking? One knows what is there only when one looks.
According to Wikipedia, wave function collapse is “the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.” In my opinion, any observation is just that. I never see two different possible processes simultaneously at any moment. I just see one process or the other.
Per Wikipedia, “When the measurement is made – it yields an outcome, only one will occur, even though more than one could, so when it happens no measurement of the other states can subsequently be made.” This is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.
So, what is there when one is not looking is simply postulated mathematically. It is not something that is actually there.
.
If I flip a coin and don’t look there are possibilities, heads or tails. Common sense says that whether I am looking or not the result is either heads or tails but not both. The 2-slit experiment seems to suggest that when I don’t look, the electron can go through both slits which defies common sense since it seems like we have both heads and tails at the same time.
The assumption seems to be that electron is like a solid particle. I don’t think so. A drop of water can go through both the slits.Electron is simply a mathematical particle. I don’t think that an electron has a sharply defined surface that separates “charged space” from normal space.
.
If a water drop spits it is now 2 separate particles of half the mass each but I don’t think the resulting splash pattern will show an interference pattern. What seems to be happening with an electron is that its mathematical probability wave passes through both slits and then interferes with itself to somehow create the interference pattern on the screen, even when done one electron at a time. When we observe it we find it acts like a particle and only goes through 1 slit because we know know it is a particle?
From Wikipedia:
“The double-slit apparatus can be modified by adding particle detectors positioned at the slits. This enables the experimenter to find the position of a particle not when it impacts the screen, but rather, when it passes through the double-slit — did it go through only one of the slits, as a particle would be expected to do, or through both, as a wave would be expected to do?
Numerous experiments have shown, however, that any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a particle passes through reduces the visibility of interference at the screen, thereby illustrating the complementarity principle: that light (and electrons, etc.) can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time. An experiment performed in 1987 produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken, without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent.
There are many methods to determine whether a photon passed through a slit, for instance by placing an atom at the position of each slit. Interesting experiments of this latter kind have been performed with photons and with neutrons.”
It becomes easier to explain when we look at electron as a “snakelike” object and not as a “golfball like” particle. As a snake, electron has a wavelike shape and it seems that an interference pattern will be generated even when the electrons are going through one of the slits, one at a time.
Fred, Keep digging around in here… your hard work is condensing the paradox and maybe if you can clearly state the paradox, the counterintuitive answer may pop out at you.
Then those waves of possibility can interefere with each other and create the interference patten seen in the double-slit experiment. If a tree falls in forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Please see Double-slit experiment in Wikipedia.
An electron is not a sharply defined particle. It has both particle and wave properties.
Any answer to that tree falling in the forest would be a conjecture, which can then be verified or falsified by actually witnessing a tree falling in the forest.
.
.
..and so do larger particles. The experiment has been performed with particles as large as C60 (Buckminsterfullerene).
http://www.quantum.at/research/molecule-interferometry-foundations/wave-particle-duality-of-c60.html
Yes. That is what I have read.
.
I slso found this: The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment which seems to prove it is not the detector but I admit I couldn’t follow what was said.
Fred said, “If a tree falls in forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Well, you will have to ask the tree or the forest.
I don’t see mathematical probabilities to be determining the reality. Probabilities come in when electron is assumed to be a golfball like particle. But is that assumption true? Why can’t one assume an electron to be a snakelike object?
I need to fully understand what a wave function is. The math seems to be a bit difficult here.
.
Here is another reference. I have yet to read it.
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
.
I would like those who want to discuss wave function collapse to fully understand what a wave function is in the first place. It is defined mathematically. So, one has to understand the mathematics involved. There is no other way.
I shall be doing the same. I shall be starting here:
Wave function
Good hunting!
.
Vinay, Let me know if this video is helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4KdZ93BrZM&feature=topics
This was an excellent video explaining the basics. Thank you.
.
I also found this lecture but have not viewed more than a few minutes so far http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZskYS2CBShQ
Fred, you have some great finds here. This is an excellent lecture.
This person’s natve tongue is Urdu. He is using it to communicate with the students, while lecturing in his second language, English. I happen to understand both languages quite clearly. I am into about 25 minutes of this lecture.
I think I need to understand the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle a bit better. Do you know it well enough? Are there some good lectures on it?
.
Here is a shorter video presentation re Heisenberg’s Uncertaint Principle http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=heisenberg+uncertainty+principle&view=detail&mid=BBFFFAD2E9DC56EE1A58BBFFFAD2E9DC56EE1A58&first=0
I am about 40 min into the lecture and the person does cover the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle during the first half. As I understand it the more precise you know the position of something the less certain you are of its momentum. In the lecture he says that that the more certain you are of the frequency of a wave the more time you need to observe it, thus less certain of where in space it is. To know the exact frequency requires infinate time.
Here is another one from India, a lecture on Heisenberg Uncertainty by Prof.V.Balakrishnan, Department of Physics, IIT Madras. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcmGYe39XG0
The underlying assumption seems to be that of use of the Fourier Series in describing perception. In other words, it is the superposition of simple sine and cosine waves that creates perception.
This is a quick look. I may be wrong. I need to study the Fourier series at this point.
.