Does the environment cause wave function collapse

[audioloop]

In interpretations with collapse, not everything is quantum. (Yes, this doesn't seem to make sense, but it works - so it is called shut-up-and-calculate. Because of this division, in the view of shut-up-and-calculate, quantum mrchanics is not a complete theory. If you want something that makes more sense try Many-Worlds, in which quantum theory is complete; or de Broglie - Bohm, which completes quantum mechanics with hidden variables.)

right, everything is not quantum.


.

 

[Maui]

Decoherence assumes everything is quantum, including the environment.

In the usual interpretation, the interaction between a quantum system and its environment is what causes decoherence. This is of course an oversimplification, as seen above, and only works FAPP but is not right in and of itself. At a more complete level it's the information about the which path that brings decoherence as you seem to agree in post 32.

right, everything is not quantum..

Like what?

 

[StevieTNZ]

As far as my understanding takes me, everything is quantum mechanical in nature. At least in principle. We await the experiment to show us a 40kg mirror is placed in a superposition of positions, for example.

 

[atyy]

In the usual interpretation, the interaction between a quantum system and its environment is what causes decoherence. This is of course an oversimplification, as seen above, and only works FAPP but is not right in and of itself. At a more complete level it's the information about the which path that brings decoherence as you seem to agree in post 32.

As long as one takes it that decoherence does not solve all problems, and only solves the "pointer basis problem" then it works completely, not only FAPP. In decoherence, the system, apparatus and environment are in the quantum world.

If decoherence is taken to solve the measurement problem, then it does not work, not even FAPP.

 

[Fiziqs]

It's not the density of the medium. It is the ability of the random scattering to provide which path information.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I have a bit of a problem trying to see how the random scattering in denser mediums can provide "which path" information. How do you gain "which path" information from random scattering?

But because I lack an understanding of the intricacies of the experiments, I may well be missing something. If we set up a double slit experiment and we introduce progressively denser mediums, we would expect the interference pattern to gradually disappear, but this could be accounted for simply by random scattering, and not be due to increased decoherence caused by an increase in "which path" information. Random scattering would cause the interference pattern to disappear regardless of any effects on decoherence.

However, I also assume that the designers of the experiments were aware of this, and accounted for it somehow. I'm just wondering how. I really would like to be sure, whether or not denser mediums cause an increase in decoherence, because this would provide an important clue into the nature of the process of decoherence. So I'm actually hoping that you can clear this up for me. (Not that I'm trying to use you as my own personal assistant, sorry)

 

[Maui]

As I mentioned in an earlier post I have a bit of a problem trying to see how the random scattering in denser mediums can provide "which path" information. How do you gain "which path" information from random scattering?

But because I lack an understanding of the intricacies of the experiments, I may well be missing something. If we set up a double slit experiment and we introduce progressively denser mediums, we would expect the interference pattern to gradually disappear, but this could be accounted for simply by random scattering, and not be due to increased decoherence caused by an increase in "which path" information. Random scattering would cause the interference pattern to disappear regardless of any effects on decoherence.

However, I also assume that the designers of the experiments were aware of this, and accounted for it somehow. I'm just wondering how. I really would like to be sure, whether or not denser mediums cause an increase in decoherence, because this would provide an important clue into the nature of the process of decoherence. So I'm actually hoping that you can clear this up for me. (Not that I'm trying to use you as my own personal assistant, sorry)

See the following excerpt(Nature, Vol.401):

"In quantum interference experiments, coherent superposition
only arises if no information whatsoever can be obtained, even in
principle, about which path the interfering particle took. Interaction
with the environment could therefore lead to decoherence.We
now analyse why decoherence has not occurred in our experiment
and how modifications of our experiment could allow studies of
decoherence using the rich internal structure of fullerenes.
In an experiment of the kind reported here, ‘which-path’ information
could be given by the molecules in scattering or emission
processes, resulting in entanglement with the environment and a
loss of interference. Among all possible processes, the following are
the most relevant: decay of vibrational excitations via emission of
infrared radiation, emission or absorption of thermal blackbody
radiation over a continuous spectrum, Rayleigh scattering, and
collisions.
When considering these effects, one should keep in mind that
only those scattering processes which allow us to determine the path
of a C60 molecule will completely destroy in a single event the
interference between paths through neighbouring slits. This
requires lpd; that is, the wavelength l of the incident or emitted
radiation has to be smaller than the distance d between neighbouring
slits, which amounts to 100nm in our experiment. When this
condition is not fulfilled decoherence is however also possible via
multi-photon scattering7,8,17.
At T < 900 K, as in our experiment, each C60 molecule has on
average a total vibrational energy of Ev < 7 eV (ref. 18) stored in 174
vibrational modes, four of which may emit infrared radiation at
lvib < 7–19mm (ref. 10) each with an Einstein coefficient of
Ak < 100 s21 (ref. 18). During its time of flight from the grating
towards the detector (t < 6 ms) a C60 molecule may thus emit on
average 2–3 such photons.
In addition, hot C60 has been observed19 to emit continuous
blackbody radiation, in agreement with Planck’s law, with a measured
integrated emissivity of e < 4:5 ð 6 2:0Þ 3 1025 (ref. 18). For
a typical value of T < 900 K, the average energy emitted during the
time of flight can then be estimated as only Ebb < 0:1 eV. This
corresponds to the emission of (for example) a single photon at
l < 10mm. Absorption of blackbody radiation has an even smaller
influence as the environment is at a lower temperature than the
molecule. Finally, since the mean free path for neutral C60 exceeds
100min our experiment, collisions with background molecules can
be neglected.
As shown above, the wavelengths involved are too large for single
photon decoherence. Also, the scattering rates are far too small to
induce sufficient phase diffusion. This explains the decoupling of
internal and external degrees of freedom, and the persistence of
interference in our present experiment."

http://atomfizika.elte.hu/akos/orak/atfsz/dualitas/fulleren.pdf

 

[zonde]

For objects other than photons - yes - for photons its probably related to they travel so quickly and there is so many of them, since their decoherence time is so long, very few interact with objects on the way through enough to decohere them - although it may decohere other objects. Of course those that are decohered and given an actual position will not participate in the interference effect.

This position is falsified by simple quantum eraser experiment (the do-it-yourself type - http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=a-do-it-yourself-quantum-eraser)
Photons definitely interact with polarizers and yet interference is seen after "erasure" of which way polarization information.

 

[Jilang]

As I mentioned in an earlier post I have a bit of a problem trying to see how the random scattering in denser mediums can provide "which path" information. How do you gain "which path" information from random scattering?

But because I lack an understanding of the intricacies of the experiments, I may well be missing something. If we set up a double slit experiment and we introduce progressively denser mediums, we would expect the interference pattern to gradually disappear, but this could be accounted for simply by random scattering, and not be due to increased decoherence caused by an increase in "which path" information. Random scattering would cause the interference pattern to disappear regardless of any effects on decoherence.

However, I also assume that the designers of the experiments were aware of this, and accounted for it somehow. I'm just wondering how. I really would like to be sure, whether or not denser mediums cause an increase in decoherence, because this would provide an important clue into the nature of the process of decoherence. So I'm actually hoping that you can clear this up for me. (Not that I'm trying to use you as my own personal assistant, sorry)

Fiz, there can be no interference if there is random scattering. That's why experiments with particles must be performed in a vacuum. Experiments with photons can be performed in an atmosphere as they are affected much less.

 

[atyy]

As I mentioned in an earlier post I have a bit of a problem trying to see how the random scattering in denser mediums can provide "which path" information. How do you gain "which path" information from random scattering?

But because I lack an understanding of the intricacies of the experiments, I may well be missing something. If we set up a double slit experiment and we introduce progressively denser mediums, we would expect the interference pattern to gradually disappear, but this could be accounted for simply by random scattering, and not be due to increased decoherence caused by an increase in "which path" information. Random scattering would cause the interference pattern to disappear regardless of any effects on decoherence.

However, I also assume that the designers of the experiments were aware of this, and accounted for it somehow. I'm just wondering how. I really would like to be sure, whether or not denser mediums cause an increase in decoherence, because this would provide an important clue into the nature of the process of decoherence. So I'm actually hoping that you can clear this up for me. (Not that I'm trying to use you as my own personal assistant, sorry)

Random means the environment is too complex for us to really know its quantum state. Since the environment is not really random, it encodes the which way information. When we say the information about the path is in the environment, we don't mean that a path has already been chosen. In decoherence, the path is not chosen yet, the information is encoded in different correlations between the environment and each possible path. So in simple cases like the one photon case, if we are able to know enough about the environment, we can make the coherence come back. Here's an experiment which used information in the environment to regain coherence http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~cronin/Research/Publications/photon_scattering.pdf .

Kokorowski's thesis http://www.atomwave.org/otherarticles/mit/Kokorowski%202001.pdf , however, does say in section 3.6.1, "Despite decades of work and hundreds of papers published on the subject, there currently exists no single, well-accepted definition of decoherence. In some sense, no such definition is necessary. What is more important is that the physical model describing how a given system's density matrix evolves appropriately includes any influence of its environment." He also has a very interesting discussion in section 3.6.5 on distinguishing between decoherence and classical dephasing.

 

[audioloop]

Kokorowski's thesis http://www.atomwave.org/otherarticles/mit/Kokorowski%202001.pdf[/URL] , however, does say in section 3.6.1, "Despite decades of work and hundreds of papers published on the subject,
[B]there currently exists no single, well-accepted definition of decoherence[/B]"[/QUOTE]

because, we don't know, what causes it, just we describe what we see.
no explanation at all.[quote="StevieTNZ, post: 4588369"]the experiment to show us mirror is placed in a superposition of positions, for example.[/QUOTE]

indeed.
with big solid objects.

[B]Observation of a kilogram-scale oscillator near its quantum ground state[/B]
[url]http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/7/073032/[/url]

"cooling technique capable of approaching the quantum ground state of a kilogram-scale system...
...to probe the validity of quantum mechanics on an enormous mass scale"

[url]http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v65/i2/e022002[/url]
[url]http://cds.cern.ch/record/451662/files/0008026.pdf[/url][url]http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v64/i4/e042006[/url]
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102012[/url]

[URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/full/nature05273.html[/URL]
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607068[/url]
[COLOR="Silver"].[/COLOR]

 

[bohm2]

If we set up a double slit experiment and we introduce progressively denser mediums, we would expect the interference pattern to gradually disappear, but this could be accounted for simply by random scattering, and not be due to increased decoherence caused by an increase in "which path" information. Random scattering would cause the interference pattern to disappear regardless of any effects on decoherence.

There are other ways of getting rid of the interference pattern:

In one experiment, Kim et al. controlled the exact interval between independent signal photons emitted in pairs [12]. As the time delay between photons was increased, first-order interference gradually vanished.

Interpreting Negative Probabilities in the Context of Double-Slit Interferometry
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0611043v1.pdf

How would you interpret such results?

 

[bhobba]

if everythig is quantum, why the division ?

With decoherence there is no division, because everything is quantum.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

As long as one takes it that decoherence does not solve all problems, and only solves the "pointer basis problem" then it works completely, not only FAPP. In decoherence, the system, apparatus and environment are in the quantum world.

Precisely :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Decoherence likely solves the pointer basis problem, but a bit more work needs to be done to say 100% for sure. That being the case the world no longer needs to be divided between classical and quantum - in analysing the measurement problem everything is now quantum.

What it doesn't solve, and the exact way its 'solved' varies between interpretations, is the problems of outcomes - ie why we get any outcomes at all - and exactly what determines what those outcomes are eg MW solves it by the world you happen to be in.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

This position is falsified by simple quantum eraser experiment (the do-it-yourself type - http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=a-do-it-yourself-quantum-eraser)Photons definitely interact with polarizers and yet interference is seen after "erasure" of which way polarization information.

And exactly how that invalidates my claim that in your usual double slit experiment, the reason you get an interference pattern is because photons interact weakly with the air, dust particles etc that is usually what lies between it and the screen, and in that situation have long decoherence times, as well as there are a huge number of them so those that do is negligible, is beyond me. Of course they interact STRONGLY with polarizes, that the randomly polarized photons that go through such are in effect observed, and only those of a certain polarization in effect get through.

In other words, in the Scientific American article you linked to, it was done in the air with dust particles and whatever else there is, and you still got the interference pattern. I contend the reason that is possible is the long decoherence times of photons because they are true quantum particles of zero mass, the fact we have a huge number of them, and they have such a fast transit time.

I want to add, and in such discussions it is hardly ever mentioned, but to be 'exact' it should, describing photons traveling through a medium like air the way I have is very very wrong:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511177

But things like this are done in physics all the time to get an intuitive idea of what's going on.

Thanks
Bill.

 

[bhobba]

How do you gain "which path" information from random scattering?

Photons that have been scattered by for example a dust particle have been decohered - actually both the dust particle and photon are decohered, and in effect both given a position. The reason position is usually what's 'observed' by decoherence is tied up with the inverse square like nature of most interactions and you will need to consult the technical literature, such as the textbook on decoherence mentioned previously, for the detail. Since they now have a definite localized position they have lost 'which path' information as you put it.

The reason you still can get an interference pattern is the massive number of photons that make it to the screen without being decohered.

Also this is a very rough and ready description, photons traveling through a medium like air is a very much more complicated process than this.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

What is more important is that the physical model describing how a given system's density matrix evolves appropriately includes any influence of its environment." He also has a very interesting discussion in section 3.6.5 on distinguishing between decoherence and classical dephasing.

Actually that's a VERY important point - thanks for sharing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

because, we don't know, what causes it, just we describe what we see.
no explanation at all.

Just because there is no generally agreed definition on exactly when decoherence has occurred, it does not follow that in many many cases we can't tell it has occurred.

Thanks
Bill

 

[zonde]

And exactly how that invalidates my claim that in your usual double slit experiment, the reason you get an interference pattern is because photons interact weakly with the air, dust particles etc that is usually what lies between it and the screen, and in that situation have long decoherence times, as well as there are a huge number of them so those that do is negligible, is beyond me. Of course they interact STRONGLY with polarizes, that the randomly polarized photons that go through such are in effect observed, and only those of a certain polarization in effect get through.

I take your claim that "the reason you get an interference pattern is because photons interact weakly with the air, dust particles etc" and make a prediction that follows from that statement - when photons interact strongly with the medium on their way interference pattern should disappear.
The first stage of experiment with markers at the slits demonstrates that photons indeed interact strongly with markers and the second stage with additional polarizer at 45° demonstrates that despite strong interaction with makers interference is still observable i.e. prediction falsified.

 

[audioloop]

everything is now quantum.
Bill

just a claim, has to be proved over very wide range of experimental facts.
example; on 10²⁰ atoms.
so, not proved yet.


.

 

[audioloop]

Just because there is no generally agreed definition on exactly when decoherence has occurred, it does not follow that in many many cases we can't tell it has occurred.

Thanks
Bill

when or what are different questions, sir.


.

 

[bhobba]

when or what are different questions, sir.

Which is of relevance exactly how?

My point is simple in the extreme - while there is no generally agreed way to determine if decoherence has occurred, there are many cases where for sure we know it has.

Many of these such as decohereing dust particles by photons are discussed in the reference I gave earlier by Schlosshauer.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

just a claim, has to be proved over very wide range of experimental facts. example; on 10²⁰ atoms. so, not proved yet

It's not an experimental issue - its if a pointer basis is determined by decoherence. It is generally thought it is, but some key theorems are lacking, and the definitive answer needs to wait until then.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DennisN]

Regarding "proofs" in science:

I don't intend to nitpick, but I think it's nevertheless important for others who may read this thread that there are no proofs in science, proofs are for mathematics.

In science there are evidence, e.g. strong evidence, weak evidence, no evidence. A hypothesis can be confirmed or ruled out (or not confirmed, if the evidence is irrelevant w.r.t. to the hypothesis).

From Introduction to the Scientific Method (University of Rochester):

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.

 

[bhobba]

prediction falsified.

I think you need to explain, very carefully, what you are getting at, and I do mean carefully, because I have zero idea what prediction has been falsified and if it is of any relevance at all.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I don't intend to nitpick, but I think it's nevertheless important for others who may read this thread that there are no proofs in science, proofs are for mathematics.

The context of proofs in science is in the area of the logical consequences of theories eg if QM is true such and such follows.

Here the idea is does QM, as a theory, single out a pointer basis. If so then a very important part of the measurement problem is solved. The theorems at present are not general enough to decide, but it is generally thought it does.

Thanks
Bill

 

[DennisN]

The context of proofs in science is in the area of the logical consequences of theories eg if QM is true such and such follows.

I don't disagree with you in general - I just instinctively frown when I see the use of the word "proof" in science, particularly when it is used when talking about experiments (which was done before in the thread). QM, the Standard Model, relativity etc. as theories/models are not proved. They are however confirmed with very, very strong evidence supporting them. It is an important distinction, IMO - we should remember that we are talking about empirical evidence in science - not proofs.

 

[bhobba]

I don't disagree with you in general - I just instinctively frown when I see the use of the word "proof" in science, particularly when it is used when talking about experiments (which was done before in the thread). QM, the Standard Model, relativity etc. as theories/models are not proved. They are however confirmed with very, very strong evidence supporting them. It is an important distinction, IMO - we should remember that we are talking about empirical evidence in science - not proofs.

And I agree its important to raise it so people understand exactly what's going on.

I have been discussing physics online for I would say nearly 15 years now and know there can be confusion about things that are obvious to those that learn it from standard textbooks. They in fact are so obvious until questioned you aren't even aware they are made.

A prime example is what a mathematical model is, and that physics is really just mathematical models.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Fiziqs]

Photons that have been scattered by for example a dust particle have been decohered - actually both the dust particle and photon are decohered, and in effect both given a position. The reason position is usually what's 'observed' by decoherence is tied up with the inverse square like nature of most interactions and you will need to consult the technical literature, such as the textbook on decoherence mentioned previously, for the detail. Since they now have a definite localized position they have lost 'which path' information as you put it.

The reason you still can get an interference pattern is the massive number of photons that make it to the screen without being decohered.

Also this is a very rough and ready description, photons traveling through a medium like air is a very much more complicated process than this.

Thanks
Bill

After considerable thought, and the consulting of various referenced sources and materials, something is puzzling me about your explanation of why photons traveling through an environment made up of air molecules, do not undergo decoherence. Your explanation, if I understand it correctly, is that the photons rarely interact with the air molecules, and this lack of interaction accounts for the lack of decoherence. If on the other hand a photon should interact with anything on its way through the environment, then it will inevitably undergo decohence. But the rarity of such events is why we see an interference pattern when passing photons through an environment consisting mainly of air. I actually have a number of concerns with this explanation, but I will focus on one in particular.

If instead of using a classical double slit setup, we use a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, then there is little doubt that the photons will interact with some part of the environment before reaching a detector. Yet these interactions do not seem to cause decoherence. If interaction is the cause of decoherence, then how do photons pass through an MZI without apparently undergoing it?

 

[bhobba]

If instead of using a classical double slit setup, we use a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, then there is little doubt that the photons will interact with some part of the environment before reaching a detector. Yet these interactions do not seem to cause decoherence. If interaction is the cause of decoherence, then how do photons pass through an MZI without apparently undergoing it?

Can't follow you there. In the Mach–Zehnder interferometer between the parts of the setup things are exactly as I describe. That's all that's required - the rest acts exactly the same regardless.

In other words it makes no difference if it was done in air or a vacuum.

Is your issue how do beam spliters, polarizes etc work?

That is a very difficult issue as a link from the FAQ's I gave before on light in solids attested to - its even difficult in air - although probably not as bad as solids - but I suspect difficult enough that our discussion here is not really correct - but the best that can probably be done at this level. For this purpose we need to simply accept they do work.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Jilang]

After considerable thought, and the consulting of various referenced sources and materials, something is puzzling me about your explanation of why photons traveling through an environment made up of air molecules, do not undergo decoherence. Your explanation, if I understand it correctly, is that the photons rarely interact with the air molecules, and this lack of interaction accounts for the lack of decoherence. If on the other hand a photon should interact with anything on its way through the environment, then it will inevitably undergo decohence. But the rarity of such events is why we see an interference pattern when passing photons through an environment consisting mainly of air. I actually have a number of concerns with this explanation ...

Er, air is transparent and see-through. It what sense can you possibly have a issue with the explanation?

 

[Fiziqs]

Can't follow you there. In the Mach–Zehnder interferometer between the parts of the setup things are exactly as I describe. That's all that's required - the rest acts exactly the same regardless.

In other words it makes no difference if it was done in air or a vacuum.

Is your issue how do beam splitters, polarizes etc work?

Let me see if I can explain. If interaction causes decoherence, which seems to be the position that you're advocating, then in the MZI, the photon enters the apparatus in a state of superposition, and should immediately decohere upon interacting with the beam splitter. Even if the photon somehow exits the BS along both possible paths, it should again decohere upon interacting with the mirrors. If interaction causes decoherence then it would seem logical that it is impossible for the photon to reach the second BS via both paths at the same time. Thus we should end up with a 50/50 likelihood of the photon being observed at each detector.

I will grant you that I may have overlooked something, even something completely obvious, but it would seem to me that by using an MZI to perform the double split experiment, it can be shown that interaction alone does not cause decoherence. Thus why should we assume that interaction with the air molecules in a traditional double slit experiment does cause decoherence, when the beam splitter and mirrors in an MZI apparently don't?

 

[audioloop]

It's not an experimental issue . It is generally thought it is and the definitive answer needs to wait until then.
Thanks
Bill

expectatives are not established facts.
standard quantum mechanics until then expect a full validation (or invalidation).



.

 

[Maui]

Let me see if I can explain. If interaction causes decoherence, which seems to be the position that you're advocating, then in the MZI, the photon enters the apparatus in a state of superposition, and should immediately decohere upon interacting with the beam splitter. Even if the photon somehow exits the BS along both possible paths, it should again decohere upon interacting with the mirrors. If interaction causes decoherence then it would seem logical that it is impossible for the photon to reach the second BS via both paths at the same time. Thus we should end up with a 50/50 likelihood of the photon being observed at each detector.

You are right, it can't reach the second beam splitter via both paths. People here are continuously on a daily basis hitting the same roadblock - the particle myth. There are no particles, if there were, people would learn to manipulate them and force them to precise positions without the need for probabilistic predictions and limiting postulates. But sure they can't because there are no particles. This is the root of all conceptual problems in qm and you've been misled as many others in believing in a framework that leads to nowhere.

As soon as you get rid of the particle concept as something existing in a realistic space and time and interacting, you'd be on the right track for certain. Yes, nobody really understands how the world works, this isn't news. All attempts at realistic ontologies are crippled and quite unsatisfactory which likely shows that they are wrong and/or incomplete.

PS. I am not trying to sell you anything but only point out what does not work.

 

[Fiziqs]

You are right, it can't reach the second beam splitter via both paths.

But apparently, if my understanding of the results of experiments done using an MZI, are correct, then the photon does reach the final BS via both paths. Something bhobba's concept, of interaction causing decoherence, would seem to forbid. As of now, I am patiently waiting for bhobba's response.

As soon as you get rid of the particle concept as something existing in a realistic space and time and interacting, you'd be on the right track for certain.

Forgive me if my use of terms like photon, and paths, give the impression that I view them as particles, I do not. Just to be clear, I have absolutely, positively, no preconceptions of photons or electrons being "particles". As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am heavily influenced by Richard Feynman's sum over histories method. I break everything down into waves, not particles. I sometimes think that it is actually due to my lack of formal education, (9th grade), that I am forced to conceptualize things in this manner, but it also makes me quite good at it. There are technical issues and concepts of which I lack an understanding, but that's why I ask questions.

This lack of education does at times make it difficult to understand the ideas that other people are trying to convey, because they are using terminology and concepts that I do not understand. It also makes it difficult for me to convey what I see, to them. It's not that I'm right and their wrong, it's just that we're seeing things from a different point of view, and having difficulty communicating those views to each other. But hopefully they will have the patience to try, and I will have the patience to listen. They may gain nothing from the exchange, but whether I gain anything, is up to me.

People may think at times, that I disregard what they say, but I try not to. I may think that what you believe is wrong, and even openly say so, but I will still attempt to ascertain why you believe it.

I'm blathering again. Sorry folks, for another off topic post.

If anyone would like to contribute their thoughts please feel free to do so. In single photon MZI experiments, how can the photon take both paths, if interaction with any of the objects along those paths, will cause decoherence? The photon should be forced to take only one of the available paths. Unless of course it takes more than mere interaction to cause decoherence.

 

[Maui]

It's not that I'm right and their wrong, it's just that we're seeing things from a different point of view, and having difficulty communicating those views to each other. But hopefully they will have the patience to try, and I will have the patience to listen. They may gain nothing from the exchange, but whether I gain anything, is up to me.

This is a valuable bit imo - many of the knowledgeable here believe reality is mathematical and does not need an interpretation - even though it's not stated explicitly, it's implicit in their statements on this board. Hence a lot of the arguments of people pushing for a classical picture over people thinking in terms of relationships. You can't reach any agreement unless you discuss in common terms and most of the times we don't. I am not a physicist and can only hope to partially get to know their religion(now I need to go put on my flamesuit :) )