Question on observer created reality

[Sherlock]

I think you have contradicted yourself here.You say 'photons and electrons don't have any
objective (ie., verifiable) existence other than as formal constructs related to detection
attributes' and then you conclude that 'oscillations of the transmitting medium are quantized'.

It seems like a reasonable conclusion, doesn't it? But, I have no way of *knowing* if
it's an accurate description of what is happening in the experimental setup prior
to detection. I can *know* whether or not a photon or an electron has been
produced, because these terms have verifiable operational meanings -- and the
physical effects (the data) that they refer to don't exist until detecting instruments
produce them. So, there's no contradition to resolve.

Having said that, I must say that I find it to be a rather unsatisfying way of talking
about things. I believe that the medium between emitters and detectors
is behaving in a real, quantized way that is directly related to the recording of
individual quantum measurement values. However, the qualitative characteristics
of whatever it is that is moving from emitter to detector, and eventually producing
a photon or electron, aren't known.

I think the resolution lies in understanding that quantization aspect is revealed to you
only upon measurement--and then to avoid the contradiction say 'before that the
photons/electrons don't exist' (though I prefer the 'as if').

If you say "as if", then you're using the terms 'photon' and 'electron' in a
way that requires you to clarify exactly what you mean.

The disturbance model does not explain EPR, but why should it? It's just an interpretation
that I have given to TFC (time-like part of field commutator). It gives you a new way of looking
at some of the things -- when you introduce a double slit in between a source of electrons and
a screen, you've given rise to a disturbance in the field,which propagates (at vel. of light) and
readjusts the field at the screen to 'interference pattern'. When you make a measurement at
one of the slits, it again gives rise to a disturbance that propagates and causes the field at the
other slit to correspond to 'no electron' and at the screen to 'no interference effects'. I think it's
a beautiful way of looking at things.

Two open slits transmit two disturbances which interfere with each other.
One open slit transmits one disturbance which has nothing to interfere with
on the other side. But, how to account for the single localized
detection when both slits are open? Maybe the two open slits transmit a single
disturbance. How does that happen, and if that *is* what is happening, then
what is that single disturbance interfering with to produce the interference pattern
observed with both slits open? I don't think you've solved *the problem*. If you do,
then that will indeed be beautiful and you will probably get a some sort of prize.

I can only tell you that this disturbance model does not contradict EPR results -- EPR results
are tested or arrived at at space-like intervals. Your measurement at '1' has not had sufficient
time to travel to '2' and affect the measurement there.

What does your model have to do with Bell test (EPR) results? And, what does this part of
your reply have to do with my question about your use of the term 'entanglement'?
Quantum entanglement is an observed effect (eg. Bell inequality violating correlations).
But you were using the term as a *cause* -- so I was asking what you meant by the
term wrt that usage.

 

[gptejms]

Having said that, I must say that I find it to be a rather unsatisfying way of talking
about things. I believe that the medium between emitters and detectors
is behaving in a real, quantized way that is directly related to the recording of
individual quantum measurement values.

Why do you bring in the medium here?The medium is not behaving in a quantized way,it's the field that does(that too upon measurement).

If you say "as if", then you're using the terms 'photon' and 'electron' in a
way that requires you to clarify exactly what you mean.

I prefer the "as if" partly because of conditioning:-we are conditioned to believe that that things(table, chair etc.) are out there even if we don't observe them--that my observation plays no crucial role in it.That does not work for electrons and photons.The other reason is that even if I don't observe an electron,something is out there(otherwise what are we describing)--it exists as a potential reality.Even the use of the words 'potential reality' is a projection of my measurement--since I observed an electron,it must be out there in some form when I didn't observe it.See, you can't segregate the observer and the observed(though physicists are used to working in that way--and that leads to the conceptual problems in QM).

Two open slits transmit two disturbances which interfere with each other.
One open slit transmits one disturbance which has nothing to interfere with
on the other side. But, how to account for the single localized
detection when both slits are open? Maybe the two open slits transmit a single
disturbance.

There is nothing like one disturbance or two disturbances--a disturbance is a disturbance,that's it.The nature of disturbance may vary.

I don't think you've solved *the problem*.

The problem is more in our heads than out there!

What does your model have to do with Bell test (EPR) results?

Nothing.In fact it's not even my model(or anyone's model)--TFC is in the structure of QFT and it implies propagation effects.

 

[vanesch]

No one is writing any more.

Don't interpret that as a victory
I'm visiting some family so it's more difficult to be at the computer the whole evening, but next week, as Schwarzenegger used to say, "I'll be back"

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Sherlock]

Why do you bring in the medium here?The medium is
not behaving in a quantized way, it's the field that does(that too upon measurement).

I'm using the word 'medium' as being more or less synonymous
with 'field'. We're saying the same thing essentially.

I prefer the "as if" partly because of conditioning:-we are conditioned to believe that that things(table, chair etc.) are out there even if we don't observe them--that my observation plays no crucial role in it.That does not work for electrons and photons.

I realize I'm maybe being too nitpicky about this. I believe that
there is an 'out there' (a quantum or submicroscopic realm) that
our senses and instruments can't track (not just that we're not
looking at it). Chairs and tables and photons and electrons have
physical referents that we *can* track, and have some sort of
qualitative apprehension of -- that is, they have meaning,
verifiable objective existence in the world of our sensory
experience. Photons and electrons are operationally defined.
They don't exist independent of the operations that create
them (except symbolically of course).

So, it really isn't correct to say that a photon was emitted, or
was transmitted by a slit, or a double-slit, or a polarizing filter
or a beamsplitter or whatever. It just isn't known what was
emitted, or what was transmitted by some filter, or what
hit a barrier or how it interacted with it or how whatever it
was that was initially emitted is behaving anywhere along the
transmission line from (and including) emission to the recording
of some data bit. Everything except the raw data and
the hardware preparation steps is an inference or assumption
of some sort.

Anyway, by definition, photons and electrons don't exist
independent of the processes that produce them. They're
defined in a certain way, and that's what they mean. What's
'out there' in quantumrealityland is still anybody's guess.
On the other hand, it would be silly to say that a chair
or table or photon or electron doesn't exist simply because
we're not looking at it.

The other reason is that even if I don't observe an electron,something
is out there (otherwise what are we describing)--it exists as a potential reality.

I also believe that something is out there doing it's thing
in submicroscopicville. We just don't know what it is out
there (wrt where the meaning of the word 'reality' is quite
ambiguous) that corresponds to what we call photons
and electrons here in ordinarysensoryexperienceland (where
the meaning of the word 'reality' is relatively unambiguous).

Even the use of the words 'potential reality' is a projection of my measurement--since I observed an electron,it must be out there in
some form when I didn't observe it.See, you can't segregate the
observer and the observed (though physicists are used to working
in that way--and that leads to the conceptual problems in QM).

'Potential reality' is a very hazy term.

There are conceptual problems because what is out there
is only indirectly accessible to us. There's an insufficient
qualitative understanding of quantum-level phenomena, which
means more data is needed.

There is nothing like one disturbance or two disturbances--a
disturbance is a disturbance,that's it.The nature of disturbance
may vary.

Let's say the disturbance (speaking 'realistically' now about
what is 'out there') is a wavefront propagating from an emitter
to a double-slit. The double-slit transmits two wavefronts,
and these two wavefronts interfere to produce more
wavefronts. I'm thinking of all these different wavefronts as
different 'disturbances' in the medium.

The problem is more in our heads than out there!

I would say that we have questions in our heads
about what is happening out there -- and we get
closer to answering those questions mainly by
sampling or probing the behavior of what is out there.

 

[panther22]

Let's deal with B. What can it possibly mean ? It means that all there is, is "observation", and "knowledge". In that respect, quantum theory just tells us about relationships between observations (of nothing :-) and your knowledge (of nothing :-). I'd say that here we are in Alice in Wonderland: anything goes.
There's a variant: there is a real world out there all right, but it is not described by any laws ; all we are allowed to know and observe is given by quantum theory which doesn't describe it, but just gives us relationships between our observations and knowledge.


So let's go for A: there is some real world of some kind or other out there. What are the possibilities ?

You kind of can't go with A on this becacuse Apak started the topic by stating B. Reading through the thread though you seemed to go on a tangent using A. In which Apak's resposne was to leave you to do your own thing, and not respond to anything. I'd like to go back to the original topic, which was about B seeing that it has been making increasingly more sense to me for the past roughly eight years now.