Ever since the implications of quantum entanglement between particles became unavoidable for physicists and cosmologists, the doubt of the accuracy or completeness of Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity became real… Einstein himself called quantum entanglement “spooky action at a distance” because the possibility of faster than speed of light transfer of information between two entangled particles (no matter what distance between them) would violate relativity and the fundamentals of one of the most successful theories in science…
Recently, however, several experiments have confirmed that entanglement is not only real but it seems to violate relativity.
The results of the first experiment have provided the speed of entanglement, which was measured to be at least 10.000 times faster than the speed of light. here
In the second experiment scientists have been able to send data via quantum entanglement at 1200 km distance. Next OP will be on this theme…
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where 2 particles, like photons or electrons, become entangled, or their quantum state, or properties, became interdependent. Any change to the property of one entangled particle instantaneously (or faster than speed of light) affects the other. Einstein believed that the exchange of information at the speed faster than speed of light would create paradoxes, such as sending information to the past. That was one of the reasons Einstein and many other physicists have rejected quantum mechanics as either incomplete or false. And yet, up until today, no experiment has ever contradicted any of the predictions of QM.
As the experiments clearly show, the speed of entanglement is at least 10.000 faster than the speed of light and if that is the case, then entanglement violates relativity, as quantum information about the quantum state of one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other entangled particle…
So, if that is true, as it clearly appears to be, why didn’t we hear about it on the News?
What I would like to do with this OP is to get everyone involved to state their opinion or provide facts why these news have not been widely spread or accepted…
As most of you probably suspect, I have my own theory about it…Yes, just a theory…for now… 😉
BTW: I love quantum mechanics…
Just like Steven Weinberg once said: <strong><i>”Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”
Bricmount has a nice book about it. Maudlin seems to favor it for its ontology, although he also has nice things to say about GRW too. He definitely does not like MWI.
Wallace is my goto guy on that these days, although there are many other supporters. I read somewhere that Bohm was favorite of philosophers since it made ontology easy, whereas MWI was favorite of physicists who care about the issue of interpretation, since it does not have issues with relativity and just accepts the formalism as is.
I’m assuming scientific realism for this; there are many anti-realists who start with quantum information and usually end up with QBism (quantum entities are not real and the QM formalism is just for Bayesian updating of our knowledge).
Thank yo for that refreshing breath of sanity. Whether the kooks will understand it is doubtful. I don’t blame you for refraining from commenting here. The kooks are running the asylum.
The arguments for some kind of scientific realism (e.g. sufficient to exclude mere instrumentalism) are compelling enough that there would have be some really extraordinary arguments that we should abandon scientific realism for QM.
The doors are wide open, you are free to leave.
I can check out any time I like but I can never leave. Plenty of room at the Hotel TSZ.
Only if you are very good in a very small way.
In this possible Universe ,yes. Do I know? No.
I would think the more important piece of information would be “ is it possible to be immortal and retain that which I identify as me?
Like Jurassic Park? That did not work out well.
It would to be actually possible, theories can be wrong.
Only the possibilities that are created by an possible choice of walto ,I think.
You won’t get any argument about the basic correctness of scientific realism from me.
I would say, however, that QM is just a formalism for making predictions. So it is not a question of abandoning realism for QM.
Whether one is a realist or not is a separate, philosophical issue. There are interpretations which are compatible with anti-realism and others which are compatible with realism. My previous post was about what I understand to be the current favorite interpretations of realists and anti-realists.
The unique issue with QM is that there is no interpretation which seems obvious from the formalism of the theory, the way eg fields and particles with their properties of position and momentum seems obvious from Newtonian mechanics. Another example is spacetime from GR equations.
But even for such theories, both realists and anti-realists can accept that interpretation while disagreeing on whether the implied ontology is real or just a fictional part of the tool set useful for prediction (or whether we are even entitled to even make a decision on this issue for the constructive empiricists).
{Edit]: MWI supporters would say an ontology based on the wave function is obvious from the formalism and use that as an argument for MWI. But then opponents of MWI say that such an ontology, namely the base of all reality is a complex-valued wave function living in a abstract mathematical space, is so obviously wrong as to act as a contradiction disproving the interpretation!
That’s far more interesting about QM than any of the stuff about immortality or cosmic consciousness, and I wish I had the background for understanding it better. But we can only do much, and it’s all I can do to keep up with the little bit of cognitive science that’s relevant for my research.
I’m sure J-Mac could recommend some primers by youtubers who have figured out the connection between MWI and levitation through prayer.
I keep forgetting what a great resource YouTube is.
No I think that conclusion is about right. I think It’s important to understand that this idea requires some modification of a typical materialist’s behavior.
If there is no modification then I would doubt whether the Materialist in question actually held to the MWI.
I would say however I find the argument against quantum immortality and by extension the MWI from the perspective of the Copernican principle to be pretty interesting.
Thanks newton for the link to the paper. That piece of information alone was worth the price of admission.
peace
I also find this interesting. It seems that the interpretation one favors is destined to be a mater of his particular philosophical temperament.
At the same time your behavior probably should vary depending on which interpretation you hold to.
peace
If there is no continuing walto counterpart there is no split as far as I can tell. The split requires a walto at each end of the junction.
I’m very open to correction on this but I believe if there is no conscious observation then the split does not happen AFAICT.
peace
That is not a statement of information it’s a question. A good one for sure.
I would say yes. Maybe not forever but at least for a very very long time
I’m not sure what is the difference in saying you think (but don’t know) something is impossible and saying that for all you know it’s possible.
peace
MWI does NOT imply we are all philsophical zombies. What ever your favorite theory is about consicounsness still applies between splits. But of course there are so many splits that perhaps the issue is moot.
Sorry, I missed the end of your paragraph. AFAIK, all MWI and quantum immortality believers still believe that you age. So quantum immortality is not particularly pleasant. But yes, they still think you continue to exist if we accept the assumptions of the thought experiment.
On personal identity:
As always, Star Trek transporters provide an alternative to MWI for picturing these personal identity issues. (Some would say a more realistic one!).
Consider the Riker episode where, due to a transporter accident, two copies of him are created. If one got killed immediately, but the other lived on, should Riker care? That’s essentially the same scenario as quantum suicide. Quantum immortality is basically an infinite sequence of those types of accidents but with Riker aging in each one..
In fact, one could argue that the killing of the person on the transporter pad and the re-assembly of that person(?) elsewhere is normal operation of the transporter!
I don’t see how believing in quantum immortality should alter your behavior. To act rationally, you have to consider both outcomes AND their probabilities.
Now among quantum immortality believers, there is an argument about how to calculate probabilities. Some (Walt and KN: eg David Lewis) have argued that you should ignore the branches where you are dead. That would mean your rational view of the probability of immortality would be larger. But it would still be very very very small, because at almost all times of your life, there will still be many branches where you will live ahead before you reach the one and only branch that continues indefinitely.
But that is not the consensus position on probability. Instead, it says that you should take into account all branches, even those where you die. So probability of immortality is even smaller.
In both cases, the probability is so astronomically, fantastically, unimaginably tiny that the materialist should act as if it were zero (pedantic aside: I believe this is called “Moral Certainty” in philosophy). .
After all, it is possible you could live to 130, even though the probability is very tiny, but who plans their life on that basis? It would be irrational. And the probability of 130 is unimaginably, immensely, larger than that of quantum immortality in the thought experiment.
As I understand it, it just amounts to this: The equations of Newtonian mechanics are about how position and momentum change in time. Position and momentum (mass TIMES velocity) seem easy to map to world we experience.
But the Schrodinger equation is about how the quantum state vector changes in time, and there is no clear way to relate that vector to our reality. For one thing, it unavoidably involves the square root of -1.
I think there is a very rough analog to this in cognitive sciences; it involves dynamic system theory. What variables are in its equations if we try to do cognitive science that way? Simple to answer for Watts governor, but for human behavior, what would they be? I do not doubt the equations exist, just like the equations of motion exist for each individual molecule in a steam engine. But you cannot do science of thermodynamics at the level of a separate equation for each individual molecule, and similarly cognitive sciences has to use higher order concepts and variables, eg the equations and representations of Predictive Processing.
As Bruce indicated, you’re slopping together MWI and some sort of collapse-due-to-consciousness theory here. Pick one only.
That sort of thing is discussed at length in Parfit’s books.
So I understand from second hand summaries. I suspect grappling with his books is beyond my pay grade, although I have read one paper by him on fissioning.
BruceS,
I’ve only looked a little bit at (the immense) “On What Matters,” but I think I don’t like it as much as his earlier “Reasons and Persons,” which is one of the great books of the 20th Century, IMHO–and is highly readable. The NYer did an interesting profile of Parfit once. He’s seen by some as a kind of saint.
I tried picking only one but then I experienced a split and ended up picking both.
Ah, well pick one only here.
That seems like an eminently sensible approach to the whole debate between anti-representationalists and representationalists. I like your comparison between thermodynamics and predictive processing there: it doesn’t make any more sense to talk about representations at the level of individual neurons or neuronal assemblies than it does to talk about entropy of single molecules.
I know I hold the belief( think) that it is not possible for the totality of what it means to be human to be immortal, I also know I am fallible, it may be possible. Seems simple.
KN:
Actually, scientists can and do speak of the entropy of single molecules.
Remember, entropy is a measure of missing information: the gap between what is known about the system (its macrostate) and its precise microstate. As long as the microstate hasn’t been pinned down, the entropy is nonzero.
For example, a system consisting of a single foldable protein molecule will have nonzero entropy if we don’t know whether or not it has folded.
It may not surprise you to learn that I failed the thermodynamics part of my organic chemistry class. But this is helpful, so thank you!
And being able to calculate the entropy of a single molecule (or of a dead frozen rat) is a sure sign of intellectual superiority.
I’m guessing that they did not teach it in informational terms.
Feeling insecure, Mung?
Always. Can I have a hug please?
That this is keiths’s view of the matter.
walto,
What I said is correct. Scientists can and do speak of the entropy of single molecules, and rightly so.
I agree that the information view of entropy is helpful and correct. But I think one cannot take such a view without already having a concept of entropy (as it appears eg in 2LT) which is not based on the information view. That is, one can only take the information view of 2LT if one previously has the thermodynamic concepts which are not based on the information view.
Consider a being with perfect knowledge of the state of the universe (assume state is Newtonian for now). Now when WE think of such a being under the information interpretation, we say that such a being always calculates the entropy as zero since it has no missing information.
But we can only say that because we already have concepts of macrostate and entropy based on our experience of the thermodynamic properties of the world (assuming we passed the course!). But why would a being that had perfect knowledge of Newtonian state ever develop such concepts?
That idea can be extended to the MWI. If a being had perfect knowledge of the quantum state of the universe (as captured by the universe’s wave function), then that being would have no measurement problem, since the term “measurement problem” relies on our experience of the classical (macro) states and the being would have no such experiences.
Note that for both cases, I have assumed that the being only has knowledge of the relevant microstate. It is not omniscient in the sense that it can take the viewpoint of any sentient entity. An omniscient entity would already have our concept of entropy since it would use the viewpoint of creatures like us for thermodynamic entropy.
My objection wasn’t to the information theory (something to which I don’t subscribe–but WTHDIK and who cares?) but to the implication that it is some sort of consensus view. It’s a highly controversial matter, as can be easily seen from several lengthy threads here on it, each of them replete with disagreeing links by respected chemists and other scientists. I have no interest in another debate on this, I simply don’t like people pretending that some view they happen to take is gospel.
BruceS, Hi Bruce!
Thanks for the stuff, BTW!
From the fact that we have a measurement problem we cannot conclude much, but that doesn’t keep people from trying.
Anyone who wants an technical overview of Statistical Mechanics should take a look at Friggs: A Field Guide to Recent Work on the Foundations o fStatistical Mechanics. Has math, but you can skip to get a flavor of the approaches and their issues.
It is fair to say that these days the answers to the measurement problem have an incoherent start, although they use the word “decoherent”.
BruceS,
I believe Mung prides himself on being anti-coherent. 😉
It’s great to come here and get a laugh even if at my own expense. Thanks walto. 🙂
Happy 4th!
I was trying to channel Stanley L. Jaki, though poorly. He wrote something vaguely similar, I’ll have to see if I can pull it up. It’s worth keeping around.
A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics (PDF)
ETA:
and
LoL
ETA ETA
For the short version scroll down to the last two paragraphs.
Mung,
I am underwhelmed.
Not necessarily…It is not really a problem if consciousness is invoked… I should clarify that the involvement of consciousness is a problem for materialists/atheists because it has metaphysical implications, such as Supernatural beyond spacetime…
So, naturally they tend to reject that idea because of their philosophical bias.
We don’t really have to speculated that consciousness is involved in the so-called measurement problem because the many experiments over the years have proven that he collapse of wave-function can be accomplished in the double slit experiment not only by the act of measurement (the measurement involves the knowing, and knowing involves the knower) but also by conscious thinking about the experiment no matter what the “distance” – that is if there is such a thing as distance on subatomic level.
Let’s just speculate that consciousness is involved in the collapse of wave-function and the creation of reality, even though we don’t really have to:
What causes the reality?
Let’s speculate that it is quantum consciousness even though we don’t really have to:
The problem, mainly for atheists/materialists, is that the creation of reality would involve consciousness outside of spacetime…but that’s their problem…
What ‘s the mechanism quantum consciousness “communication at the distance”, just like in the the double slit experiment by Dean Radin?
Hameroff/Penrose propose that quantum consciousness is “operating” via quantum entanglement, which was proven to be 10 000 times faster than the speed of light and it is still possible that it is instantaneous…
https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls…pdf
So, what is left to explain is the mechanism of the instantaneous communication of quantum states between entangled sub-particles…
Let’s just speculate and propose Dark Energy–as the nonexistence of time or distance of quantum level is not really that appealing for now 😉
Why? If dark energy exists, as it appears to be, causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe at fine-tuned cosmological constant 10^120. Dark energy permeates everything in the universe, including us, subatomic world and so on…It could very well be causing the inanimate matter to become animate or alive….
So, if Dark Energy can cause matter to break the speed of light at the extremities of the universe, why not cause instantaneous collapse of wave-function by connecting the universal consciousness with ours?
That’s what you like to tell yourself, yes, but the fact is that “supernatural beyond spacetime” is not even coherent.
It’s not that people reject your ideas because they have a inherent bias, it’s that your ideas are stupid and unformed.
Yes, it could. How long have you been tripping for? Since the 60’s I’d guess.
My post was an attempt at humor. Decoherence theory, which is a consequence of QM theory, is recognized by most as solving some but not all of the measurement problem (at least for all practical purposes). Specifically, it tells us why we don’t see superpositions and why we do a particular set of classical results (the so-called preferred basis problem). But it does not tell us why we see probabilities — that needs an interpretation beyond the QM formalism.
You are correct in saying that most philosophers and scientists do not accept any role for consciousness in solving the measurement problem .
I’d seen that claim before, maybe in Aeon or as a 3 Quarks essay. While searching to see if I could relocate that article, I came across this paper by Barrow, which I think makes some fair criticisms of Jaki’s argument that Godel’s incompleteness theorems limit physics.
Some of the criticisms are technical: for example, the real numbers can be axiomatized in a way that avoid Godel’s results; hence, if the laws of physics was based on reals or on complex numbers, physics might avoid Godel.
Barrow also presents a less technical argument that I find compelling. Axioms of physics are not like axioms of mathematics; they are not the starting-place and hence unchallenged assumptions of a mathematical system. Instead, they are the proposed laws of nature. If we found strong enough empirical evidence in experimental results which could not be reconciled with existing laws of physicss, we would not consider that an example of incompleteness. Instead, we would formulate new laws. Barrow argues that in fact scientists are most interested in discovering that type of incompleteness.
Although Barrow does not think Godel limits the laws of physics, he does point out that Godel undecidability may apply to calculations of outcomes for some physics equations, like the wave equation or GR. However, the situations leading to this undecidability involve physical situations which do not arise in nature, at least those situations do not arise in any current view of reasonable possibility.