Wave Function Collapse (Part 3)

Bose_Einstein_condensate_620

Reference:

WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE (Part 1)

WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE (Part 2)

.

I asked the following question on Quora,

Can a phenomenon such as light be discrete in terms of energy but not in terms of space?

In other words, is photon discrete because of the way it interacts, but we erroneously assume it to be a particle in space?

The answer I got is that this question is a no-brainer and it has long been settled. But then, what is this mystery about wave-function collapse?

After a bit of Q&A I arrived at the following conclusion.

“Now it has started to make some sense. A measuring apparatus cannot measure position in space directly, because it interacts with the photon in terms of energy first. It will interact with an “energy particle” and through that interaction it will try to determine position in space. Of course the “energy particle” will collapse the position of the wave function.

“But that doesn’t mean that the position is collapsed in reality. The “space particle” does not exist. There is only a continuous wave in space, only we cannot measure it. Thank you. Now I understand what collapse of wave function means. It is an illusion.”

The imprint on photographic film also is an outcome of energy interactions, therefore it is impossible to observe the electron in the double slit experiment as it actually behaves in space–as a wave.

The problem is that we are trying to observe a spatial phenomenon indirectly through an energy phenomenon.

Quantum Mechanics is looking at space through the filter of energy.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:03 AM

    Reference: https://vinaire.me/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-768

    In personal context, the collapse of a wave function would be a mental “filter” that one is looking through.

    That “filter” has nothing to do with agreement with others. It is simply the narrowing of the context in which one is looking and thinking.

    Similarly, there are social and cultural filters that appear as morals and fashions. That is again restrictions in terms of the context in which the society and culture must look and think.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:11 AM

      Einstein used mathematics to support his intuition that time was not absolute and independent of space, and he succeeded in that in a big way.He also tried to show that matter is not absolute and independent of space either, but he didn’t quite succeed there.

      But there was no such crashing intuition that has guided quantum mechanics. It has tried to investigate matter through mathematics alone and has succeeded to some degree in terms of inventions but not in terms of progress in knowledge in any big way.

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:17 AM

      The main inconsistency that I see in QM is that it is math driven. It has explained real phenomena in bits and pieces only and not as a whole.

      That is why I have been contemplating on the Disturbance Theory.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:24 AM

      The intuition that is guiding the Disturbance theory is that space-energy-mass are different forms of the same fundamental reality just like gas-liquid-solid are different forms of matter.

      Einstein already discovered that matter is condensed energy. The missing piece seems to be that energy is disturbed space.

      .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:30 AM

    Reference: https://vinaire.me/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-769

    I now have a better idea of “frame of reference” in terms of broadness of the context that determines viewpoint and objectivity. Please see

    https://vinaire.me/2015/12/15/viewpoint-objectivity/

    It is not the agreement among viewpoints that determines objectivity, but the broadening of a viewpoint.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:47 AM

      Fractals may be understood in terms of the broadness of the context.

      (1) Increasing place value in a numbering system includes the smaller place values. This could be looked upon as similar patterns within patterns that describe the fractals.

      (2) My recent realization about fields has been that nuclear field resides within electronic field, and the electronic field resides within the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field resides within the space field, if space could be seen as a field of zero frequency.

      (3) I do not see serial universe as universes independent of each other, but as universe within universe within universe kind of pattern, but that can be explained in terms of “broadening or shrinking of the context”.

      (4) The idea of “infinite within finite” can be understood only in terms of using the correct definition of infinite which is “undefined”.

      .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:55 AM

    Reference: https://vinaire.me/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-774

    My current thinking is that the observer and observed are one and the same thing when the consideration of identity vanishes.

    This is obvious in one sense, but still reqires some deep contemplation to grasp fully. The above view is the only way to get out of infinite regression.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM

      I talk about unknowable, but maybe the universe can know itself completely. Hoever, that is just a speculation.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM

    “Unknowable” simply means that the universe is not fully knowable. It can be known only partially.

    And that is wonderful because this exciting game will continue. It is never going to be over.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 8:46 AM

    The term “unknown” only applies to a part and never to the whole. Only parts of the universe can be known. The whole will remain unknowable because it is difficult to know when you arrive at the whole.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 8:48 AM

    Maybe the universe can know itself completely. But that is just a speculation.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 9:22 AM

    That there is something more to be known always keeps me going.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM

    There would be nothing more to be known only when all logical inconsistencies have been resolved. So I would simply focus on logical inconsistencies and not worry about whether everything can be known or not.

    Unknowable will become unknown to me only when I see that I have only this much to resolve and that would be it.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 10:47 AM

    It is okay to have a degree of certainty. But the mind must be kept open because there can be a higher degree of certainty.

    The whole import of “unknowable” is that mind should forever be kept open.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 10:58 AM

    Some people may see the idea, “The whole universe will remain unknowble,” as a discouragement; but let this be encouraging any part of the universe can always be known.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 11:04 AM

    Infinite means “undefined”. So, all of it can never be known to the last detail. But in can always be known as having the quality of infinite.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM

    Reference: https://vinaire.me/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-790

    To quibble about unknown and unknowable is to wonder whether everything can be ever be fully known or not. On this I have the following to say: Truth is not absolute.

    https://vinaire.me/2014/06/04/the-absolute-truth/

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM

      “Unknowable” simply means that the universe is not fully knowable. It can be known only partially. And that is wonderful because this exciting game will continue. It is never going to be over.

      Some people may see the idea, “The whole universe will remain unknowable,” to be discouraging; but the idea of unknowable does not apply to the parts. Any part of the universe is knowable.

      When we talk of unknowns it is always about some part of the universe, and not the whole universe. The whole will remain unknowable because it is difficult to know when you arrive at the whole.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 11:25 AM

      It is okay to have a degree of certainty. But the mind must be kept open because there can always be a higher degree of certainty. The whole import of “unknowable” is that mind should be kept open.

      There would be nothing more to know when all inconsistencies have been resolved. So I would simply focus on logical inconsistencies and not worry about whether everything can be known or not. That there is always an inconsistency to be resolved keeps me going.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 1:46 PM

      Anything can be fully known only in a larger context. Therefore, parts can be fully known in the context of the whole. That is reason why whole universe cannot be fully known because there is no larger context.

      Trying to know the whole universe in its own context simply becomes a tautology. Therefore, the whole universe is unknowable.

      Whenever in the past I have used the term “unknowable” it applies only to the whole universe. This modification is the result of my improved understanding.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM

      The ratio PI is finite in value and it can be known within certain bounds, but it cannot be defined exactly using a discrete numbering system.

      When you use a discrete numbering system, the representation of PI ends up with undefined number of decimal places. There is no last digit to its exact value, therefore that last digit can never be known.

      Picking up any digit as the last digit shall not give you an exact value of PI.

      .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 2:26 PM

    Reference: https://vinaire.me/2012/05/23/wave-function-collapse-part-2/#comment-2659

    I think that I have a better idea of Higgs field now from Disturbance Theory. Particle physics is number based theory and it does not provide a realistic explanation for the Higg’s Field. But Disturbance Theory defines it as an electromagnetic field of zero frequency. This is also space for practical purposes.

    This definition from Disturbance Theory is realistic because it can be related to the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum. At the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum frequency convergence and condenses into mass. So a Higg’s particle will have to traverse the whole electromagnetic spectrum to generate mass.

    The hypothetical ether was supposed to have material properties. But the Higgs field is supposed to have field properties. Field properties are in some ways fundamentally different from material properties.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:12 PM

    Let me comment on this video sent to me back in Oct 2011 for review.

    The video starts out by saying that there is more to the world than what we are perceiving. There is some kind of observer-matter interrelationship going on, which is determining how we perceive the world. Reality out there is filtered through our sense organs, so we are aware of only a small part of it.

    I addressed this same subject recently at https://vinaire.me/2015/12/15/viewpoint-objectivity/. Here are some points.

    1. Formation of viewpoint begins with physical sense experience.

    2. The physical sense experience consists of electrical impulses arriving at the brain through physical sense channels.

    3. The physical sense experience is interpreted into ideas and images by genetically programmed associations in DNA.

    4. The mental sense develops as it interprets order among these ideas and images through an intuitive sense of logical consistency.
    .

    I expanded upon the concept of logical consistency at https://vinaire.me/2015/12/19/logical-consistency/
    .

    The key points are as follows:

    (1) We apply mental sense to overcome the limitations of the physical senses.

    (2) We locate logical inconsistencies and then look at them closely to locate what is missing.

    (3) Logical inconsistency disappears when the missing information is located.

    (4) As context is broadened more logical inconsistencies appear and we handle them as above.

    When the context is broadened as wide as the universe and we have resolved all logical inconsistencies then we shall know all reality objectively.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:37 PM

      The video says:

      “QM is really the play and display of information… and potentiality… waves of information… waves of potential electron… you have to ask the question, “Waves of what really?”… These are waves in the ocean of pure potentiality…”

      .
      To me it is an ocean of electromagnetic field in which there exist gradients of frequency. This field represents disturbance in space. The basic fabric is space. Mass is formed at the locations of very high frequency in the form of nuclear field within electronic field within electromagnetic field. I have detailed it here.

      https://vinaire.me/2015/12/17/speed-of-light-revision-1/

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 6:45 PM

      This video claims that atoms are mostly empty, and that electrons are particles that are revoving around the nucleus. The universe is mostly empty.

      I don’t think so. Per the link above, the reality seems to be a very complex field wthin a less complex field within a simple field. The universe is full of different kind of fields. It is not empty at all.

      All the information lies within these fields.

      .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 7:24 PM

      According to this video, deeper research into reality for core building blocks of life takes us into pure abstraction of self-aware consciousness. However, it does not define self-aware consciousness objectively.

      The video mentions of research about intention influencing random number generators, one brain potential telepathically reflecting another brain potential, intention influencing reality, but it also says that such experiments cannot be demonstrated in a consistent and substantial way because people don’t believe that they can influence reality.

      This is a very incomplete research. It consists mostly of conjectures.

      .

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 8:20 PM

    Here are my comments on this video.

    This video takes up three ideas from Buddhism: (a) Emptiness (b) Interconnectivity (c) Nature of reality. This video is hard to understand because of background music. I think that any scientific presentation should be clear without distraction. Background music is a distraction here.

    The video says, “Emptiness can be understood as a field of potential in which every possibility arises. It strongly parallels the concept of the quantum field.”

    This video then talks about wave-particle duality. It makes incorrect conclusion that an apple has both particle and wave form at the same time. According to Dissonance Theory, a particle is simply a condensed region within a field. Condensation occurs at very high frequencies.

    This video draws incorrect conclusions from the double slit experiment that consciousness affects the results. The truth is described in the original essay above.

    No further comments are necessary.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM

      It appears that Quantum Mechanics itself is not interpreted correctly in terms of reality. It is basically based on numbers and mathematics.

      So, I would not be using quantum theory to justify conjectures regarding consciousness.

  • vinaire  On December 20, 2015 at 9:21 PM

    Here are my comments on this video.

    This is an excellent video. I love Einstein. He was a great intuitive thinker.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM

    In Quantum Mechanics the mathematical vocabulary is as complex and complicated as the Scientology vocabulary, or even worse.

    That means, there is considerable amount of arbitrary rule making to make the theory match reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: