Quantum Mechanics, Sklansky and God

[David Steele]

Wouldn't that invalidate Bell's theorem?
It's my understanding that if the quantum phase connection is real, then it links 'all' systems that have once interacted (not just twin-state photons).

Well first of all Bell's theorem is a fact so nothing is going to invalidate it, but it has nothing to do with consciousness, so I guess you ask about a case where the human is part of a system in question.

For the case of macroscopic objects, decoherence makes the quantum effects go away and leaves quasi-classical behavior.

D.

[David Steele]

I don't think he was referring to the slit experiments, but to the experiments showing violations of bell's inequality.

Well he mentioned slit experiments first in the religion thread but it doesn't make any difference for my answers. Consistant history will guarantee that you will measure the expected spins etc. in the aspect experiments.

D.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that invalidate Bell's theorem?
It's my understanding that if the quantum phase connection is real, then it links 'all' systems that have once interacted (not just twin-state photons).

Well first of all Bell's theorem is a fact so nothing is going to invalidate it, but it has nothing to do with consciousness, so I guess you ask about a case where the human is part of a system in question.

For the case of macroscopic objects, decoherence makes the quantum effects go away and leaves quasi-classical behavior.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slightly OT: Have you read Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order ?

[Borodog]

One thing that has always intrigued me is the way that most (if not all) of physics can be expressed either within a causal framework where certain quantities are conserved (mass, momentum, energy, charge, etc), or as variational principles, where different kinds of quantities (times, distances) are either maximized or minimized.

The problem is that, for example, to minimize the path length taken by a photon as it crosses a boundary from a material with one index of refraction to another (which is what happens in the end) the photon has to know where it's going to end up right from the start. In the causal framework, there is no problem; there are a set of rules that tell you how much the path bends at the interface depending on the two indeces of refraction. But in the variational framework, the photon must "know" ahead of time where it's going to end up. It hardly seems like a coincidence that the causal framework can be translated into a variational principle, but it seems to have . . . disturbing . . . implications.

[FortunaMaximus]

Posit: Possible complex-observer influences?

The more observers there are to an event, be it photonic or singular, the increasing likelihood there is for the event to adhere to predictability. A sort of Faraday cage, perhaps, using observer containment.

Seems somewhat probable that this could be possible.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]


The problem is that, for example, to minimize the path length taken by a photon as it crosses a boundary from a material with one index of refraction to another (which is what happens in the end) the photon has to know where it's going to end up right from the start. In the causal framework, there is no problem; there are a set of rules that tell you how much the path bends at the interface depending on the two indeces of refraction. But in the variational framework, the photon must "know" ahead of time where it's going to end up. It hardly seems like a coincidence that the causal framework can be translated into a variational principle, but it seems to have . . . disturbing . . . implications.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fermat's principle of least time is a result stemming from Huygen's princple, so no, the photon does not need to know where it will end up from the start. I really don't know where you got this idea. An individual photon may not even go at this angle, but you have destructive interference with the wavepackets that do go against the grain so to speak.

I suggest you pick up Hetch's Optics. It is an excellent Upper level undergrad book if you would like to learn more about optics.

[FortunaMaximus]

Hmm. My local uni has a weekly Quantum Optics seminar (U of Toronto)

Related merits to this discussion? Worthwhile?

[evank15]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. My local uni has a weekly Quantum Optics seminar (U of Toronto)

Related merits to this discussion? Worthwhile?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know the fundamentals of QM (plus the requisite knowledge of electromagnetism, classical mechanics, Einsteinian relativity etc.) then it might be like listening to a lecture in Swahili.

Definitely worth trying out one week though, for sure. It's all fascinating stuff.

[FortunaMaximus]

What I'm gapping, I can swot up pretty quickly.

Besides, thanks for the physics forum link. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Edit: MAMAMBO! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Piers]

I think it’s our reductionist approach to modelling the universe that leads to quantum weirdness.

In particular we tend to componentise. Find local areas of interest that act in a homogeneous fashion. We can study these areas in isolation, once understood we can then use them as building blocks to understand larger areas.

The trouble is the universe does not work in this way. Quantum mechanics is natures revolt against our flawed approach to understanding its nature.

I believe a key weakness is that we put boundaries on things. For instance we might think of a particle as a solid billiard ball, but in nature there are no boundaries, rather think of a wired cactus plant with a extremely large root system, then spreads out in all directions and eventually touches everything in the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
Can those that really understands this physics elaborate?
- and of course the rest of us, feel free to speculate!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t understand what I talking about, but then I don’t believe anyone else does either.