The Illusion of Free Will in the Context of Time Travel and Paradoxes

[agentredlum]

Bucky balls. C60.Hang on. I'm not comfortable describing entanglement as an interaction. They are entangled, it is not a case of one affecting the other. Which is why it does not violate relativity.Good point. Gravity is just a word. If we're looking at Einsteinian gravity - the curvature of space, then instantaneous is not the right word. A better word is omnipresent. The field is just "there". It always was there and walsy will be, though its value may change. The propogation of changes in the filed is limited to the speed of light.

If we're looking at quantum gravity, well that's mediated by gravitons, which propogate at c as well.

WOW! Didn't know Buckyballs exhibit quantum entanglement, that's fantastic! I googled Buckyball entanglement and got quite a few links, here is a link NOT wiki.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html

There are many 'explainers' of EPR that claim violation of speed of light. Here is a link combining buckyball entanglement and EPR

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1092359

 

[Drakkith]

In practice, true.

The point is, that it implies our reality is not as real as we thought. If the universe could stop paying attention to it, it might disappear.

That is a heady concept.

I've yet to see anything that implies that, but I haven't gotten into the nitty gritty math and other details of QM.

 

[agentredlum]

If nobody is looking at it then everyone Must look somewhere ELSE. This requires a systematic search of the entire universe to complete the proof Bohr wants.

His rquest is equivalent to asking 'prove unicorns do not exist'

I do not make him a "God" His superiors made him a Dr. and his peers made him famous.

And the intriguing reply from Niels Bohr was:

Can you prove that the moon is there if nobody is looking at it?​

Personally I love Einstein; he was a great genius, but to make him a scientific "God", which never made any mistakes, doesn’t benefit anyone...

I love Einstein too. In my opinion, as far as his physics is concerned-not his personal life-the only time he was wrong is when he thought he was wrong, physics wants to bring back the Cosmological Constant!

 

[agentredlum]

Certainly that counts as an interaction. That's why the thought experiment is not a practical one - but it is one of principle.

In principle, all the oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Practially, it will never happen in the lifetime of the universe. But there's no physical law vetoing it.

O-K i have heard this argument before but i have a question about it. Does Q. M. allow you to say...

In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.

Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If nobody is looking at it then everyone Must look somewhere ELSE. This requires a systematic search of the entire universe to complete the proof Bohr wants.

I don't follow you Dave. How could the moon, or anything else really, ever NOT be interacting with something else? Whether the oxygen atoms are on the other side of the wall or not, they are always withing the effect of countless fields right?

[Note: I’m not a professor of physics]

agentredlum & Drakkith, I think DaveC426913 explained it all very well. As said, a 'measurement' does not need to be a 'visual inspection' by humans; all it takes is a 'disturbance' to put the quantum state into a 'definite' state. As we all might have guessed – Einstein’s talk about the Moon is a 'teasing' metaphor to 'stress' Bohr a little bit (they liked to joke around). However, as far as I know, the discussion between them where primarily on the level of the 'quantum world'.

Nevertheless, it’s quite clear that there’s no clear cut between the classical macroscopic world and the microscopic quantum world, and everything in 'our macroscopic world' is of course resting on the laws of the quantum world (= QM rules! ).

Furthermore, as humans we doesn’t often reflect on this – but 'our reality' consist mainly of emptiness, huge voids of emptiness (and I’m not talking about the feeling when your favorite football team lose the game of the year ). We like to think of macroscopic objects as solid and compact, but they are mainly built up of emptiness, including the Moon...

For me personally, it feels a little bit 'odd' to think that the Moon would 'disappear & reappear' like a freaking "Morse code" if it could be completely "screened off/on". However, my personal feeling is not something QM cares about , and I have discussed this matter with RUTA (who indeed is a PhD Professor of Physics), and thought I had real 'tricky question' in showing him the picture of gold atoms, as we see them thru scanning tunneling microscope (that are microscopic and thus shouldn’t 'exist'):

The positions of the individual Gold atoms
composing the surface are visible.

RUTA answered:

This confusion is always generated by statements like "atoms and photons don't exist." Zeilinger has created interference patterns with large molecules (buckyballs, I think) and there's nothing in QM that says you can't get interference patterns using even bigger objects. So, do molecules not exist? Where is the "cut off?"

The "picture of atoms" you showed was generated by millions of photons per second. The belief is that the atoms are "there" whether we excite them or not. That's the source of the confusion. In the RBW "relational" view, or Bohr et al's "symmetry" view, or Zeilinger's "measurement" view, if you strip away the relations/symmetries/measurements, you lose everything. In the atomic view, you still have the atom "sitting there in space," it's just not interacting with anything, i.e., it's "screened off." Once you decide to construct "things," like the atoms in your picture, from relations/symmetries/measurements, rather than smaller "things," e.g., quarks and electrons, then you understand clearly that the atoms in your picture slowly disappear as you gradually reduce the number of relations/symmetries/measurements ("photons" in the language of "things") used to "see them." In other words, the relations (aka "photons" in "things" talk) don't allow you to "see the atoms," the relations "construct the atoms." So, given millions of photons per second, you're well into the classical regime, thus your "picture." This view makes it clear how the dynamical/causal classical reality of interacting "things" might obtain statistically from a more fundamental, adynamical reality of relations/symmetries/measurements (a la the Figure from our arXiv paper you posted earlier).

And the Moon (of course) consists of similar building-blocks in form of atoms...

(However, when I questioned RUTA about gravity the picture seems to be just a little bit 'unclear', and who can blame him – quantum gravity is still under investigation... )

RUTA is working in the forefront of all of this, looking for new explanations, and one working hypotheses, is that everything is made up of interactions! What we see is the 'mirror image' of what really goes on at the QM level. Look at this picture of the two faces:

Then look at the 'thing' in between the faces that form into a vase – this "vase of interactions" is all that really is!

(i.e. according to RUTA ... )

In my opinion, an interesting aspect of EPR is that the 'interaction' is instantaneous violating speed of light limit.

Dave is right again, this is not the case. There is no exchange of true information going on between entangled particles – thus no superluminal speed (FTL). The 'only' thing you get is correlations, which are completely random to its nature, and you are only able to detect and see this 'pattern of correlations' by exchanging the measurement data at (maximum) the speed of light.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubts, and nowadays clear that the old classical world of Local Realism is a dead parrot. What remains to be settled is whether the real nature of our world is non-local or non-real (or both!). According to Dr. Anton Zeilinger it’s the idea of reality (as we know it), which is at stake...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIzMZtQ9NwQ

 

[Drakkith]

Nice post Devils, but unfortunately I don't think really answered my questions at all.
But I did learn other things!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Okay, thanks Drakkith! Let 'em coming, I’ve reloaded my Unreal-QM-Machinegun!

()

 

[Drakkith]

Okay, thanks Drakkith! Let 'em coming, I’ve reloaded my Unreal-QM-Machinegun!

()

Just remember your quad damage pickup! (I think that was unreal)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just remember your quad damage pickup! (I think that was unreal)

The unreal quad damage pickup is not a bad vehicle, but when things get real nasty – I always use my imaginary speedy red sports car, it always makes my enemies cry!

 

[agentredlum]

Is this place a forum for debate, or is this place, just a place, where others give subjective opinions why they think they are right?

 

[Drakkith]

Is this place a forum for debate, or is this place, just a place, where others give subjective opinions why they think they are right?

What are you talking about?

 

[Trevormbarker]

lol^. could someone not argue that timetravel to help the past will never be discovered as if someone in the future does discover it it is likely they would try to prevent something from happening ie the holocaust but we have not seen anything like that be stopped or someone form the "future" in which case we could say that time travel is never discovered, at least for any purposes of affecting the past.

 

[agentredlum]

What are you talking about?

I am a little disappointed because i have presented evidence and it has been ignored.

 

[OneMan98]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

 

[agentredlum]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

I for one welcome your input. You may have an insight we all missed. Personally, I am not an expert but the subject fascinates me. If one cannot explain their position to a non expert then how good is the explanation?

 

[Drakkith]

I am a little disappointed because i have presented evidence and it has been ignored.

What? You have multiple posts that have been replied to. How have you been ignored?

 

[Drakkith]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

Quote from Wikipedia via 2-3 different sources:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. [1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] T

I'd agree that philosophy and science go hand in hand. After all, how can you do science without being rational!

 

[agentredlum]

What? You have multiple posts that have been replied to. How have you been ignored?

Wait, i didn't say i was ignored, i said the evidence presented by me has been ignored. Specifically links supporting my opinion about consciousness collapsing the wave function and my position that quantum entanglement of photons violates the speed of light for information transmission.

I am not disapointed by this correspondence, i am greatfull, however, i am a little disappointed about...other things. I don't want to say more about that.

 

[Drakkith]

Wait, i didn't say i was ignored, i said the evidence presented by me has been ignored. Specifically links supporting my opinion about consciousness collapsing the wave function and my position that quantum entanglement of photons violates the speed of light for information transmission.

I am not disapointed by this correspondence, i am greatfull, however, i am a little disappointed about...other things. I don't want to say more about that.

My mistake, I misread your post lol.

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

 

[agentredlum]

My mistake, I misread your post lol.

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

Here, at last, I am in total agreement with you.

 

[agentredlum]

I was thinking about a question i posted yesterday and i think i have an answer so tell me if this answer is valid.

First, the question...

Does Q. M. allow you to say...In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

Now my attempt to save Q.M. from a 'nagging' question like this.

3 oxygen atoms will be outside. The fourth oxygen atom will be partially outside, partially in the wall.
The part of the fourth oxygen atom that will be outside is...pi - 3...the part in the wall...4 - pi.

Go agent, go agent...LOL

 

[alxm]

According to Quantum Mechanics?

Real quantum mechanics or the Deepak Chopra/New Age version you've been advocating?

 

[agentredlum]

Real quantum mechanics or the Deepak Chopra/New Age version you've been advocating?

Actually I am not a fan of that quantum mechanics and a little hurt by your question. I pose what i believe are legitimate questions. Should any theory be above criticism? I am no expert. Experts in the field have posed similar questions to mine.

 

[agentredlum]

In the bginning this thread was pure speculation. Someone posted a quote by Dr. Einstein against the philosophical foundations of Q.M. I am guilty of posting that qoute. What happened next is many 'defenders' of Q.M. started posting. I have no problem with that. They make their arguments for Quantum Mechanics, I make my arguments against their arguments. It makes the discussion interesting. I am not advocating any theory, if anything i agree with Dr. Einstein because his objection make sense to me.

I do not dispute the experimental verifications of Q.M. but i point out another qoute by Einstein.."No amount of experimentation can prove me right, 1 experiment is enough to prove me wrong"-Albert Einstein

I am suspicious of the philosophical foundations of Q.M. that is all.

 

[afstgl]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox, even if it was technically possible to go back in time, it wouldn't be your time, if there is any truth to parallel universes and the concept that time does not flow but rather we move along it and as a result perceive it to be flowing, then any going back in time will result in sending you to a parallel universe, since you go back to a moment you yourself have passes and now there is a completely different scenario playing out, you may be able to go back IN TIME, but never back IN YOUR OWN TIME, so if you go back and kill your grandfather, assuming he exists in that parallel universe, you will not cease to exist, you will only break the line that leads to your parallel self, you won't get born in that particular instance but would already have been born in your time and time traveled to that prior moment.

Does it make sense?

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

Drakkith mirrors my opinion. Since it does not refute my stance (that consciousness is not required), and I have nothing to add, I said nothing. I leave that to others to take up.

Does Q. M. allow you to say...In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

Now my attempt to save Q.M. from a 'nagging' question like this.

3 oxygen atoms will be outside. The fourth oxygen atom will be partially outside, partially in the wall.
The part of the fourth oxygen atom that will be outside is...pi - 3...the part in the wall...4 - pi.

1] I have no idea what pi has to do with anything, so I don't understand your question at all. How can you have a fraction of an atom?

2] 'Veto' means 'deny'. So your question says "...atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Does QM say this can't happen?" Is that what you meant?


3] I introduced tunnelling to demonstrate that particles in QM don't behave like we expect. They don't "go from here to there". Simply put, their position is determined by probability (I'll speak specifically about electrons rather than whole atoms). An elecrton doe not move about an atom; it simply has a probability cloud. Measure the electron and its position will be contained by that cloud. The cloud (since it is simply a probability field) can overlap other objects, such as walls. If the probability cloud of an electron extends beyond the wall of a container, it means there is a non-zero chance that, when measured, the electron will be detected outside the container - even though it cannot pass through the container.

All this aside, the point was that the Moon, a collection of particles writ huge, behaves similarly - at least in principle.

In the bginning this thread was pure speculation. Someone posted a quote by Dr. Einstein against the philosophical foundations of Q.M. I am guilty of posting that qoute. What happened next is many 'defenders' of Q.M. started posting. I have no problem with that. They make their arguments for Quantum Mechanics, I make my arguments against their arguments. It makes the discussion interesting. I am not advocating any theory, if anything i agree with Dr. Einstein because his objection make sense to me.

I do not dispute the experimental verifications of Q.M. but i point out another qoute by Einstein.."No amount of experimentation can prove me right, 1 experiment is enough to prove me wrong"-Albert Einstein

I am suspicious of the philosophical foundations of Q.M. that is all.

I wonder if it should be in a separate thread, since I am not entirely clear what your argument is.

 

[agentredlum]

Drakkith mirrors my opinion. Since it does not refute my stance (that consciousness is not required), and I have nothing to add, I said nothing. I leave that to others to take up.1] I have no idea what pi has to do with anything, so I don't understand your question at all. How can you have a fraction of an atom?

2] 'Veto' means 'deny'. So your question says "...atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Does QM say this can't happen?" Is that what you meant?3] I introduced tunnelling to demonstrate that particles in QM don't behave like we expect. They don't "go from here to there". Simply put, their position is determined by probability (I'll speak specifically about electrons rather than whole atoms). An elecrton doe not move about an atom; it simply has a probability cloud. Measure the electron and its position will be contained by that cloud. The cloud (since it is simply a probability field) can overlap other objects, such as walls. If the probability cloud of an electron extends beyond the wall of a container, it means there is a non-zero chance that, when measured, the electron will be detected outside the container - even though it cannot pass through the container.

All this aside, the point was that the Moon, a collection of particles writ huge, behaves similarly - at least in principle.
I wonder if it should be in a separate thread, since I am not entirely clear what your argument is.

I made the remark about the thread cause my feelings were hurt just a little bit by the accusation i was advocating for new age Q.M. You have not hurt my feelings, as a matter of fact i find your arguments logical and the conversation interesting. However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

I thought people would get a kick out of (pi - 3) + (4 - pi) = 1 The whole oxygen atom. I

I have no problem visualising a ruler of lenth 1. Now place the ruler protruding from the desk. The value pi-3 extending from the desk. The value 4-pi on the desk. Since the entire ruler is made of these two parts their sum must equal 1 and it does. By analogy you can have an oxygen atom with parts between two mediums. The atom is not 'split' (LOL) it is merely in transition.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

I think you need to read up on how they work before you try to critcize. Your description is inaccurate.

I thought people would get a kick out of (pi - 3) + (4 - pi) = 1 The whole oxygen atom. I

I have no problem visualising a ruler of lenth 1. Now place the ruler protruding from the desk. The value pi-3 extending from the desk. The value 4-pi on the desk. Since the entire ruler is made of these two parts their sum must equal 1 and it does.

I have no problem visualing this either.

By analogy you can have an oxygen atom with parts between two mediums. The atom is not 'split' (LOL) it is merely in transition.

I get it. But what does it have to do with anything? It appears spurious. Maybe you should start a new thread.

 

[Drakkith]

However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

What do you mean they aren't permitted certain orbitals?

 

[agentredlum]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox, even if it was technically possible to go back in time, it wouldn't be your time, if there is any truth to parallel universes and the concept that time does not flow but rather we move along it and as a result perceive it to be flowing, then any going back in time will result in sending you to a parallel universe, since you go back to a moment you yourself have passes and now there is a completely different scenario playing out, you may be able to go back IN TIME, but never back IN YOUR OWN TIME, so if you go back and kill your grandfather, assuming he exists in that parallel universe, you will not cease to exist, you will only break the line that leads to your parallel self, you won't get born in that particular instance but would already have been born in your time and time traveled to that prior moment.

Does it make sense?

Yes, it makes sense to me. However, the great physicist Richard Feynman developed an entire theory where virtual subatomic particles travel backward in our OWN time and create the very event witnessed in our present. To borrow a quote from DaveC426913 "That is a heady idea" A consequence of Feynman's ideas is that you only need 1 electron in the entire universe to account for all chemical interactions. This explains why the charge of all experimentally observed electrons is the same.

To put it another way, someone may ask 'Why is the charge on all electrons the same" and the reply comes "It's the same electron, zipping along through time and space mediating all interactions"

As soon as one recovers from this staggering idea then one can ask, "is there only one proton?" and many other similar questions.

I am not for or against this idea, i can't prove either way.
I'm just talking here, don't want to step on anybodies toes.

 

[boffinwannabe]

as for collapsing the wave, has it not been shown this is when information becomes known? The delayed quantum eraser experiment showing it wasnt the measurement that collapsed the wave, it was when the information became available to the observer. I take this to mean the moon is nothing more than a probability wave until someone observes it.

 

[boffinwannabe]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox,

my original point. But my point went further, its not that a paradox would prohibit time travel but that the only reason its proposed that a paradox contra-indicates time travel is our need to understand what happens next. Theres no maths to say that stops time travel. And anything we do is already part of all possible histories, the universe already allows for it.

 

[agentredlum]

What do you mean they aren't permitted certain orbitals?

What do you mean what do i mean? The Bohr atom.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Bohr atom = incomplete

 

[agentredlum]

The Bohr atom = incomplete

Yes, but that is where the idea of quantum jumps came from.