Does this experiment demonstrate that conscoiusness causes collapse?

[Frame Dragger]

Are you saying that the final outcome is determined by initial conditions? You must be a Bohmian too.

I made a snorting sound, laughing out loud at that. I'm not kidding, but apparently I'm a turbo-nerd!

Lets put it this way, I believe that you and Zenith could overcome even the fog of probability and pull a Bhomian out of the, um, hat. That, and let's be honest now, you'd send the kid, to 'de Broglie and Bohm's Summer Camp For Precocious Youth' and make them listen to, 'Mamma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Copenhagenists', and then read the classic, 'Where The Determinists Are'. :grin:

Edit: If you do have a Bhomian, I'll buy him/her a plushie of Laplace's Demon.

 

[Demystifier]

Actually, the favored song of Bohmians is Bohemian Rhapsody by Freddie Mercury (Queen). If you don't know why, see the lirics after the abstract of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702069 [Am.J.Phys.76:143-146,2008]

Now let us return to the subject of this thread. What Bohr would say about it?

 

[SpectraCat]

Actually, the favored song of Bohmians is Bohemian Rhapsody by Freddie Mercury (Queen). If you don't know why, see the lirics after the abstract of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702069 [Am.J.Phys.76:143-146,2008]

Now let us return to the subject of this thread. What Bohr would say about it?

Keeping with the musical theme, how about, "What's conciousness got to do with it"?

P.S. AWESOME title for that paper ... I couldn't stop chuckling about it

 

[Demystifier]

P.S. AWESOME title for that paper ... I couldn't stop chuckling about it

See also this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156104

 

[Galap]

IMO quantum collapse is impossible for several logical reasons:

1. Quantum effects are, well, quantum. That means that things can only take on certain values. Now, a conscious being like you and I is extremely complex and detailed, and its consciousness relies on quite subtle things, like the fact that a small piece of lead barreling through only one part of us makes us decidedly NOT conscious. In other words, consciousness is a sensitive thing, not either or, but more or less, a sliding scale. That's not how these experiments work. What if a dog was the observer? a Mouse? A Snake? An ant? A Jellyfish? This leads to point 2:

2. The bottom line is, we don't even know what consciousness is, so how can we say that something so subtle and macro is affecting something so small and micro? Why would something based on such large and averaged out effects directly affect fundamental particles? This leads to point 3:

3. Supposing that there is some definitive definition of consciousness and that making a decision on the matter is a truly binary thing, how could a single fundamental particle possibly have enough nuance and complexity to determine something about the state of about (upon calculation) 1.46x10^29 of said fundamental particles?? I don't know about you, but to me that seems totally ludicrous.

 

[DrChinese]

Then what causes what the experimenters claim:

Erase which-path information BEFORE backwall observation --> No collapse
Maintain which-path information until backwall observation --> Collapse

Muddle data BEFORE backwall observation --> no collapse
Maintain integrity of data until backwall observation --> collapse

If this source isn't lies, then what causes collapse has to either be the ability of a conscious being to observe the results, OR the fact that coherent data on the which-path information exists. There exists no other possibilities.

You might be interested in this, which does a better job than your original reference (which as far as I follow it is not correct):

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

Or if you prefer the source experiment itself, prehaps this will settle the matter:

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf

 

[jimgraber]

Backward in time or retrocausality also seems to solve the problem.
I wonder what Dr. Chinese thinks of this recent paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5057

But I think this belongs in a new thread, so I will start one.

Jim Graber

 

[Frame Dragger]

Backward in time or retrocausality also seems to solve the problem.
I wonder what Dr. Chinese thinks of this recent paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5057

But I think this belongs in a new thread, so I will start one.

Jim Graber

So, the Transactional Interpreation?

 

[jimgraber]

So, the Transactional Interpreation?

Yes, and other similar ones, particularly the one advocated by Huw Price.

 

[Dmitry67]

1. No, quantum eraser would not work if information would leak and dissipate into the environment
2. There is no collapse