Physics and Free will

[idav]

Actually all of my explanation ignores that (although it's not technically accurate to describe a wave, quantum or classical, as "a wave of points" but rather as spread-out and, simplistically, without any "points"). My reason for ignoring it (or maybe passing over it so as to focus on relativity itself) is in part because special and general relativity both ignore quantum mechanics and no sufficiently satisfactory theory of relativistic quantum physics yet exists. It is also in part because of the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation", the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (which turns out to have different interpretations itself and while the majority of physicists working in fields like quantum mechanics give it lip-service most do not think it satisfactory). According to the Copenhagen interpretation, to ask anything about a quantum system before it is measured is meaningless. Another way to say this is that the "spread-out" nature of quantum systems is a probability function, not anything "real" (i.e., QM is irreducibly statistical). A single photon, therefore, is under the mainstream interpretation of QM a mathematical entity with no real existence or properties outside of a mathematical, abstract space.
Personally, I think that this interpretation (championed by Bohr and contested bitterly by Einstein) is a cop-out. It was a way of dealing with the fact that because things get weird if we try to interpret what the mathematics of QM says about quantum systems apart from measurements (e.g., a photon after it "passes" through the double-slit screen but before it is detected). Instead, we shouldn't even interpret the mathematical representations of QM as representations of physical systems, let alone try to figure out how they relate. I don't think this is tenable anymore, given the numerous experiments which not only demonstrate the very physical nature of quantum systems but also have shown that quantum effects such as superposition states can occur far outside the subatomic realm of QM.
This problem doesn't disappear in 4D spacetime. First, everything "warps" spacetime. Yet it is possible to demonstrate that the laws of physics (outside of QM) are the same everywhere, which is to say that relativity gives us classical results at least locally (in some frame of reference or reference frames close that their light-cones "overlap"). So locally, particles should still behave like particles and waves should not exist as actual "things" (in classical physics, waves were just the disturbance of matter; they required a medium and thus couldn't exist in a vacuum). One difference would be that light should not be a wave at all, as Einstein himself showed it can't be, but that's not a big deal. The problem, though, is that classical physics doesn't hold locally in 4D spacetime any more than in the 3D Newtonian world.
Second, if we try to use relative simultaneity to explain why it "seems" as if things like electrons and photons propagate like waves, we are left with no reason why they do and the things which they make up don't. Basically, we're still left trying to explain how we have to sets of “laws” of physics for every region of spacetime. It’s actually worse, because we can’t show that the properties of QM are the same in every reference frame without changing both relativity and QM mostly by fiddling with equations.
Third, if quantum systems somehow “warp” spacetime in some way such that they are able to exist in two points at once, they still exist at two points at once. They do that anyway (superposition) so we haven’t resolved anything we’ve just invented a fix that turns out to mess up relativity instead. On the other hand, if we try to think of e.g., photons as particles that can appear to be waves because they are only ever at one point in spacetime but somehow “not our spacetime” then we’ve willed another cosmos into existence without any way to explain how it is supposed to make up our own. Spacetime is spacetime- there isn’t one for us and one for quantum systems (which are supposed to be the “stuff” that make up what we are anyway). There is no ‘other” spacetime just different ways to “slice up” spacetime. However, every different possible “slice” can be put into a single “whole” such that all the differences among reference frames concerning e.g. the time of events, time dilation, length dilation, etc., are resolved (this is mainly what special relativity is: the resolution of these would-be paradoxes). The ways in which a single spacetime can be “sliced” to explain the different measurements among different reference frames falls apart at the quantum level.

I think that ignores the very aspect that causes the issue of the wave to begin with. Essentially with your interpretation of Copenhagen is that essentially the photon is "in more than one place" but once it collapses was "never everywhere in the first place". It was there to begin with is what am debating. The Copenhagen interpretation would mean the photon was just able to travel all those points before it instantaneously collapses to one point, this your able to reconcile by ignoring that there is even a spread.

I agree with all of what your saying. Relativity and spacetime reconciles the mystery of how something can be in more than one point in space, I think when things are in a quantum state it is essentially like the photon being the speed of light and outside spacetime, so of course we would sense a paradox. However if I leap across the universe using those physics it would be real, and in theory I could reach any point.

 

[Yerda]

Did we ever get to a sensible answer to the conundrum in the OP?

I agree that the thought experiment seems to imply that from certain frames of reference my future has already "happened".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm addressing this part in a separate post because the following concerns something rather different than the rest of my responses.

I think that ignores the very aspect that causes the issue of the wave to begin with.

I'm not sure I follow. What was the "issue of the wave to begin with"?
From an historical point of view, the issue was with the classical conception of matter. In particular, all matter was believed to be made up of particles (and ultimately the most "elementary" or fundamental particle(s) which everything can be reduced to). Waves were a kind of effect on matter (like vibrations), and didn't really exist (at least not the way particles do, as these make up matter while waves were an effect on matter).

Spoiler: Historical Detils

In 1900, the general idea that physics was pretty much over with (there was nothing much left to discover, which was why Max Planck's teacher advised him not to go into physics). One problem, though, was that nobody could find any evidence of the medium through which light propagated. By this time, basically everybody agreed that light was a wave, but nobody could find evidence of the hypothetical “ether” which was believed to be the medium required for light to travel. In 1905, Einstein’s foundational work on special relativity radically challenged this idea by providing a theory that not only required light to travel with no medium, but also at a constant speed.

Even without quantum physics, special relativity made light something different than anything in physics. Had light never “behaved” like a particle it would still be a problem within the framework of classical physics because it was already different than a wave. Luckily, physicists didn’t really worry about that because the same year Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by positing that light was composed of discrete units (quanta) of energy, so nobody really had time to worry about light being a different kind of wave. Instead, they had to come to terms with the fact that neither waves nor particles exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Essentially with your interpretation of Copenhagen is that essentially the photon is "in more than one place"

The Copenhagen Interpretation basically says that photons are never in more than one place and are never waves. Essentially, it says that the wavefunction governing the dynamics of photons is a mathematical entity, not something that exists, and it is meaningless to ask what properties light (or any other quantum mechanical system) had before we measure it.

but once it collapses was "never everywhere in the first place".

Not exactly. Rather, the Copenhagen Interpretation holds that asking questions about something that can’t be and will never be measured is not physics and is thus meaningless. Quantum mechanics (in this interpretation and for the most part in practice) is a procedure and mathematical framework within which we can predict that systems prepared in specified ways will yield measurements of particular types. Under this interpretation, the question “what/where was a photon before it was measured/observed?” is like asking about the physical nature of the square root function or where the normal (“bell-curve”) probability distribution is.

It was there to begin with is what am debating. The Copenhagen interpretation would mean the photon was just able to travel all those points before it instantaneously collapses to one point

It doesn’t mean this at all. In fact, it is fundamentally incompatible with this view.

this your able to reconcile by ignoring that there is even a spread.

I don’t agree with the Copenhagen/Orthodox Interpretation. I don’t think we can simply ignore the nature of quantum systems just because we don’t know how our mathematical representations of these systems correspond to anything in “reality” before we interact with them (before the so-called collapse”).
I also don’t agree that electrons or photons were at one place before we measure them and that it is misleading to think of light as consisting of photons. While neither classical waves nor classical particles exist, the most accurate way to think about things like photons or electrons (without getting really complex) is to think of everything as wave-like entities which start behaving like “particles” very quickly when we get to the macroscopic realm.

Relativity and spacetime reconciles the mystery of how something can be in more than one point in space

According to relativity and the spacetime model, there are no points in space, and thus nothing can ever be in either one point in space or many points in space. How, then, is the mystery reconciled?

However if I leap across the universe using those physics it would be real, and in theory I could reach any point.

What physics? It seems like you are using concepts taken from both quantum physics and relativity and sort of putting them together in ways that make sense to you, but without actually providing a way for us to use either theory. For example, in QM we don’t determine the momentum or position of a photon using measurement. We use operators which (simplistically) are like the logarithmic function or cube root function: they are mathematical functions. Without these operators, nothing can be said of any quantum system- ever. These operators do not exist in special or general relativity. Therefore, until you show how we can apply these mathematical operators in a theoretical framework (relativity) which doesn’t have them or allow for them, it makes little sense to think of relativity as explaining quantum phenomena.

 

[idav]

The Copenhagen Interpretation basically says that photons are never in more than one place and are never waves. Essentially, it says that the wavefunction governing the dynamics of photons is a mathematical entity, not something that exists, and it is meaningless to ask what properties light (or any other quantum mechanical system) had before we measure it.

Not exactly. Rather, the Copenhagen Interpretation holds that asking questions about something that can’t be and will never be measured is not physics and is thus meaningless. Quantum mechanics (in this interpretation and for the most part in practice) is a procedure and mathematical framework within which we can predict that systems prepared in specified ways will yield measurements of particular types. Under this interpretation, the question “what/where was a photon before it was measured/observed?” is like asking about the physical nature of the square root function or where the normal (“bell-curve”) probability distribution is.

It doesn’t mean this at all. In fact, it is fundamentally incompatible with this view.

I don’t agree with the Copenhagen/Orthodox Interpretation. I don’t think we can simply ignore the nature of quantum systems just because we don’t know how our mathematical representations of these systems correspond to anything in “reality” before we interact with them (before the so-called collapse”).
I also don’t agree that electrons or photons were at one place before we measure them and that it is misleading to think of light as consisting of photons. While neither classical waves nor classical particles exist, the most accurate way to think about things like photons or electrons (without getting really complex) is to think of everything as wave-like entities which start behaving like “particles” very quickly when we get to the macroscopic realm.

According to relativity and the spacetime model, there are no points in space, and thus nothing can ever be in either one point in space or many points in space. How, then, is the mystery reconciled?

What physics? It seems like you are using concepts taken from both quantum physics and relativity and sort of putting them together in ways that make sense to you, but without actually providing a way for us to use either theory. For example, in QM we don’t determine the momentum or position of a photon using measurement. We use operators which (simplistically) are like the logarithmic function or cube root function: they are mathematical functions. Without these operators, nothing can be said of any quantum system- ever. These operators do not exist in special or general relativity. Therefore, until you show how we can apply these mathematical operators in a theoretical framework (relativity) which doesn’t have them or allow for them, it makes little sense to think of relativity as explaining quantum phenomena.

I disagree with the collapse aspect. Quantum computing shows the quantum states to be real, when entangled, when in two positions at once allowing for quantum computing. That allows for us to decide otherwise just like we see in quantum computing. Because a photon is making itself seem as if its in more than one point then that is enough of a cause, a parallel type cause to mske a difference and thus get entangled somewhere different. That it is spread, because it shows its spread cause it interferes with itself with superpositions. I believe the superposition can manifest anywhere we choose to entangle it. Experiment shows that.

Think of it like this. It is a problem with the spread when we are interefering with a huge target, but if its a slit it interferes at the slit, or anywhere we insist on entangling with the photon thus it loses its quantum state and loses its superpositions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I disagree with the collapse aspect. Quantum computing shows the quantum states to be real, when entangled

It is problematic to say that any "state" is real of any system. Rather, the system is real and by "state" we refer to certain properties of that system. Quantum states exist only in a (usually) infinite dimensional Hilbert space. To make that a little more detailed, by "infinite dimensional" I don't mean that the mathematical "space" is infinite. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc., spaces are all infinite. However, 2D space is infinite in that it extends infinitely along two dimensions (the x,y coordinates of a plane). Infinite dimensional is more like saying that the space extends infinitely along infinitely many dimensions. Also, Hilbert space is a particular kind of mathematical space.
More importantly, quantum computing is wholly and absolutely consistent with the Copenhagen/Orthodox interpretation of quantum physics. Empirical and other theoretical arguments do challenge this interpretation (an interpretation I personally think wrong), but quantum computing does not tell us anything about the state of a quantum system until it is "observed". It is an information-theoretic reformulation of the Copenhagen/Orthodox view: that quantum systems are mathematical abstractions and that the only meaningful "physics" of QM is how it allows us to predict measurements or (in the case of quantum computing) use "probabilistic" computing.

when in two positions at once allowing for quantum computing

Quantum computing doesn't allow any such thing. It is quite fundamentally related to the formulation and interpretation of Bohr (the man behind the curtain who is most responsible for the Copenhagen/Orthodox Interpretation of quantum mechanics). We prepare a system, transcribe it in mathematical terms, measure/observe/interact with it, and use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to yield values for these measurements. A central difference between quantum computing and experiments with quantum systems in general is that quantum computing is able to readily treat quantum systems as abstract mathematical entities with mathematical values that are no more real than the idea that your computer is actually using the 1's and 0's of Boolean algebra. It is a step away from quantum mechanics as a theory of how actual, "real", physical systems work. All the processes and properties we wish to learn about quantum systems before "collapse" (or decoherence) are now irrelevant as these are not physical systems in the real world but abstract computations.

That allows for us to decide otherwise just like we see in quantum computing.

The physical make-up of your computer involves a lot of high-end materials, precision, engineering, materials science, etc. However, almost everybody who learns anything about how computers work are never exposed to the physics of microprocessors or nanotechnology. You can understand how a computer is able to take input and return output, understand algorithms, understand logic gates, etc., without knowing the slightest thin about the physics (or nature) of an actual computer.
The same is true in quantum computing. We don’t learn anything more about quantum systems in quantum computing we learn less (more accurately, we use less of that we’ve learned).

Because a photon is making itself seem as if its in more than one point

How is it doing this? That is, can you explain your reasons for understanding that quantum mechanics or quantum computing tell us that a photon "seems as if it's in more than one point"?

That it is spread, because it shows its spread cause it interferes with itself with superpositions. I believe the superposition can manifest anywhere we choose to entangle it.

How on earth do we "entangle" the "superposition"?

Experiment shows that.

Such as?

It is a problem with the spread when we are interefering with a huge target, but if its a slit it interferes at the slit, or anywhere we insist on entangling with the photon thus it loses its quantum state and loses its superpositions.

We never "entangle with the photon". I think you are confusing entanglement with something very, very, different.

 

[idav]

It is problematic to say that any "state" is real of any system. Rather, the system is real and by "state" we refer to certain properties of that system. Quantum states exist only in a (usually) infinite dimensional Hilbert space. To make that a little more detailed, by "infinite dimensional" I don't mean that the mathematical "space" is infinite. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc., spaces are all infinite. However, 2D space is infinite in that it extends infinitely along two dimensions (the x,y coordinates of a plane). Infinite dimensional is more like saying that the space extends infinitely along infinitely many dimensions. Also, Hilbert space is a particular kind of mathematical space.
More importantly, quantum computing is wholly and absolutely consistent with the Copenhagen/Orthodox interpretation of quantum physics. Empirical and other theoretical arguments do challenge this interpretation (an interpretation I personally think wrong), but quantum computing does not tell us anything about the state of a quantum system until it is "observed". It is an information-theoretic reformulation of the Copenhagen/Orthodox view: that quantum systems are mathematical abstractions and that the only meaningful "physics" of QM is how it allows us to predict measurements or (in the case of quantum computing) use "probabilistic" computing.

Quantum computing doesn't allow any such thing. It is quite fundamentally related to the formulation and interpretation of Bohr (the man behind the curtain who is most responsible for the Copenhagen/Orthodox Interpretation of quantum mechanics). We prepare a system, transcribe it in mathematical terms, measure/observe/interact with it, and use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to yield values for these measurements. A central difference between quantum computing and experiments with quantum systems in general is that quantum computing is able to readily treat quantum systems as abstract mathematical entities with mathematical values that are no more real than the idea that your computer is actually using the 1's and 0's of Boolean algebra. It is a step away from quantum mechanics as a theory of how actual, "real", physical systems work. All the processes and properties we wish to learn about quantum systems before "collapse" (or decoherence) are now irrelevant as these are not physical systems in the real world but abstract computations.

The physical make-up of your computer involves a lot of high-end materials, precision, engineering, materials science, etc. However, almost everybody who learns anything about how computers work are never exposed to the physics of microprocessors or nanotechnology. You can understand how a computer is able to take input and return output, understand algorithms, understand logic gates, etc., without knowing the slightest thin about the physics (or nature) of an actual computer.
The same is true in quantum computing. We don’t learn anything more about quantum systems in quantum computing we learn less (more accurately, we use less of that we’ve learned).

How is it doing this? That is, can you explain your reasons for understanding that quantum mechanics or quantum computing tell us that a photon "seems as if it's in more than one point"?


How on earth do we "entangle" the "superposition"?


Such as?

We never "entangle with the photon". I think you are confusing entanglement with something very, very, different.

You can pretend itbis just computational but is measuring something real. The math is not cause the spread due to particles going through both slits. You have to treat it as such in the math cause thats what happened. Not catching it in the act doesn't change that

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't know how many people here understand these arguments as well as you do. -- I don't even know where to begin. What does QM have to do with time?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can pretend itbis just computational but is measuring something real

I think it key to try to define what we are talking about when we say what "it" is doing and in particular what "measurement" means here. I tried writing some things out and using LaTeX form the formal notation, but it was exhausting and the LaTeX code took up too many characters. So I have provided some scanned pages from Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement 3 that I'll go over and (hopefully) explain well-enough so that we can get some idea of what is going on, so I wouldn't actually do more that at most skim the pages as I will refer to and explain the essentials:

Here are the important things to note:
First, notice that we begin with QM as it existed all the way back when Bohr formulated it. The "measuring apparatus" doesn't actually measure anything we know. That Greek letter ρ is "the state of the measured system", but notice first that the measuring apparatus itself "inputs the state". It outputs a conditional value (the conditional part is one way, or reason, that QM isn't deterministic). OF KEY IMPORTANCE is the following: the output states "are determined by the spectral projections of the measured observable by the Born statistical formula and the projection postulate respectively." What does this mean?
First, the "projection postulate" is basically Dirac's term for "collapse of the wavefunction" or an effect of measurement causing "quantum jumps between states accompanied by the "collapse" of the wave function that can destroy or create information (Dirac's projection postulate..." (The Measurement Problem). Second, the "measured observable" isn't something anything ever measures or observes. It's a Hermitian Operator, but for simplicity we'll just refer to it as a purely mathematical "thing" with certain algebraic and statistical properties that once again make QM indeterministic.

Now, notice that the author goes on to describe how we can do more with this framework (obviously, as this is a paper in a volume on quantum computing which didn't exist when QM was formulated). However, do we get any closer to describing some physical system? No:
"The state change is described by a completely positive superoperator valued measure, (v) The family of output states is a Borel family of density operators independent of the input state and can be arbitrarily chosen by the choice of the apparatus." This requires a lot of unpacking. First, the parts I cut off (i.e., the parts beginning with i and ending with iv) refer to an iteration of interactions/measurements/preparations with quantum systems that are described differently (i.e., a quantum state might be referred to as being "prepared" even though this is no different than being "observed") but which are always performed in any kind of experiments with quantum systems.

Second, the "output states" are again determined not by measuring any system but by "density operators". Here's what a density operator is:

Notice that the Greek letter ρ turns up here again (that "hat" on the top of the letter is a typical notation to distinguish operators in QM), and very importantly with the most important letter in all of quantum physics: ψ. That letter is used to denote the wavefunction (other symbols can, that's just the most common one). The rest of the notation as to do with the summation of the modulus of components of an inner product in Hilbert space of vector-valued complex functions of time. So, we'll ignore that for the most part other than to realize that the wavefunction, the thing that is supposed to be "real", is never measured and never interacts with anything other than mathematical functions and most importantly the operator. This is related to the second confusing part: what on earth does it mean for these "operators" to be "arbitrarily chosen by the choice of the apparatus"!!?

Simplistically, it means that because the wavefuction is a probability function and thanks to the mathematical structure of QM we don't require a specific operator given the input in order to ensure the correct transformation (a mathematical term which we can think of as a "rule" for assigning values given another mathematical entity called a "vector" in a mathematical space called "Hilbert space"). That is, because we aren't working with anything other than a mathematical entity that we've defined into existence given innumerable successful outcomes combined with a physical theory, and because we make that entity correspond to the allowed probabilities given particular preparation and specifications, it is a mathematical function that already "contains" all the information needed to apply whatever the rule for whatever (appropriate) operator we pick actually applies.

Quantum computing, though, gets even more devious here. As I'll cover in the next post, even the measurement apparatus becomes mathematical.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We're at section 2 "Measurement Schemes". There are two important things in the first two sentences, namely that namely that we're again talking operators and that the "space" we're dealing with isn't just not 3D, it's not even Euclidean and doesn't even have limits to the number of dimensions (it is infinite dimensional). The first really important line is "we shall give a general mathematical formulation for the statistical properties of measuring apparatuses." Now, I don't know about you, but when I get out a ruler or a microscope or some other measurement devise I don't need any formulation for the "statistical properties" of these measuring devices, so what on earth are we talking about here?
Well, we're not in the land of quantum physics but quantum computing, and thus we adopt notions and abstractions that computer science was founded on. You've probably heard of a Turing machine, an abstract concept Turing developed in a groundbreaking paper before there were computers (he didn't call them Turing machines). Even today, computer science and related sciences refer to "machines" and other things we normally think of as very physical as being abstract entities defined mathematically.
Turing's paper is couched in the language of set theory and logic, and describes an abstract device which takes input and uses certain rules to transform the input into output. That's fairly simple. Remarkably, it's what basically all of the rest of the pages I scanned talk about. If you look at the top of the last picture, you'll find the sentence "An element of A is called an apparatus." The term "element" here refers to a member in a set (a set is a collection of things like the integers or the vowels of the English language; basically, more math). The letter "a" is a member of the set "vowels" and the letter "b" is not a member. The point is that the apparatus which is doing are computing here is yet another mathematical abstraction.
In quantum mechanics, we always deal with systems that the orthodox interpretation tells us are probabilities or irreducibly statistical and which we all know that, whatever they actually "are", we don't know how our mathematical representations correspond to reality. Now in quantum computing, we're even more abstract, and even farther removed from dealing with physical systems and "reality". Now we aren't just talking about systems which don't have any known relation to the "real world" and the properties of which are represented by operators, we've turned the entirety of experiments in QM into an abstract "scheme" (or "schema") in which even the measuring devices aren't real. Naturally, the question becomes "it's all well and good to talk about abstract apparati ("apparatuses" is etymologically incorrect) but something has to be real or we can't compute anything". That's true.
What doesn't have to be real is much of what QM is used to study, define, investigate, predict, etc. Quantum dots, NMR, SQUIDs, neutral atoms, electrons, and so forth all become irrelevant whether they constitute the technology used or the “things” (e.g., electrons) that we now call qubits.
We are that much more removed from even attempting to pretend there’s good reason to ask “what does the mathematical representation mean?” And now, finally, to quickly address your post.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The math is not cause the spread due to particles going through both slits. You have to treat it as such in the math cause thats what happened. Not catching it in the act doesn't change that

This is actually not true, and it is not true in extremely important ways. It is true that the mathematical structure is the result of experiments. It is not true whatsoever that the "spread due to particles" even makes any sense, let alone that if it did, it is absolutely the mathematics that determine this. QM is a theory of mechanics and thus a theory of the dynamics of physical systems, which means that it is motivated by actual experiments. However, those experiments tell us that what we always observe can't be the thing we observed. If we say that QM deals with particles than it is always wrong. If we say it deals with waves it is always useless (because we always "measure" discrete units). You are assuming that there is a particle going somewhere that we have to treat as if it were doing something such as "going through both slits". We have absolutely no reason to think there ever was a particle before we observed one, and every reason to think there wasn't. It is only by assuming that there was never any particle ever going anywhere that we are able to make QM work. The problem isn't that photons or electrons have the property with the poorly chosen name "wave-particle duality". Einstein's relativity theory already gives us this light wave that doesn't act like a wave. We could deal with pretty easily with a new kind of physical system that had both wave-like and particle-like properties.
The problem is that we don’t have such a system. We have systems that always and everywhere exhibit wave-like behavior. The only exception to this is when we look at them. So on the one hand, basically the entirety of QM is a theory about waves (albeit waves that don’t require a medium). Other than some flourish, make-up, and fancy notation much of QM is simply classical electrodynamics as far as the ways in which systems are described and the kind of dynamics mathematically described. Everything is waves.
Except when we try to do anything to detect that there ever were the waves we have stated must be there. When we look, we never find waves, just particles that shouldn’t be there and that can’t be there if they were particles before we looked.

 

[idav]

I think it key to try to define what we are talking about when we say what "it" is doing and in particular what "measurement" means here. I tried writing some things out and using LaTeX form the formal notation, thbut it was exhausting and the LaTeX code took up too many characters. So I have provided some scanned pages from Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement 3 that I'll go over and (hopefully) explain well-enough so that we can get some idea of what is going on, so I wouldn't actually do more that at m. I skim the pages as I will refer in the essentials:

Here are the important things to note:
First, notice that we begin with QM as it existed all the way back when Bohr formulated it. The "measuring apparatus" doesn't actually measure anything we know. That Greek letter ρ is "the state of the measured system", but notice first that the measuring apparatus itself "inputs the state". It outputs a conditional value (the conditional part is one way, or reason, that QM isn't deterministic). OF KEY IMPORTANCE is the following: the output states "are determined by the spectral projections of the measured observable by the Born statistical formula and the projection postulate respectively." What does this mean?
First, the "projection postulate" is basically Dirac's term for "collapse of the wavefunction" or an effect of measurement causing "quantum jumps between states accompanied by the "collapse" of the wave function that can destroy or create information (Dirac's projection postulate..." (The Measurement Problem). Second, the "measured observable" isn't something anything ever measures or observes. It's a Hermitian Operator, but for simplicity we'll just refer to it as a purely mathematical "thing" with certain algebraic and statistical properties that once again make QM indeterministic.

Now, notice that the author goes on to describe how we can do more with this framework (obviously, as this is a paper in a volume on quantum computing which didn't exist when QM was formulated). However, do we get any closer to describing some physical system? No:
"The state change is described by a completely positive superoperator valued measure, (v) The family of output states is a Borel family of density operators independent of the input state and can be arbitrarily chosen by the choice of the apparatus." This requires a lot of unpacking. First, the parts I cut off (i.e., the parts beginning with i and ending with iv) refer to an iteration of interactions/measurements/preparations with quantum systems that are described differently (i.e., a quantum state might be referred to as being "prepared" even though this is no different than being "observed") but which are always performed in any kind of experiments with quantum systems.

Second, the "output states" are again determined not by measuring any system but by "density operators". Here's what a density operator is:

Notice that the Greek letter ρ turns up here again (that "hat" on the top of the letter is a typical notation to distinguish operators in QM), and very importantly with the most important letter in all of quantum physics: ψ. That letter is used to denote the wavefunction (other symbols can, that's just the most common one). The rest of the notation as to do with the summation of the modulus of components of an inner product in Hilbert space of vector-valued complex functions of time. So, we'll ignore that for the most part other than to realize that the wavefunction, the thing that is supposed to be "real", is never measured and never interacts with anything other than mathematical functions and most importantly the operator. This is related to the second confusing part: what on earth does it mean for these "operators" to be "arbitrarily chosen by the choice of the apparatus"!!?

Simplistically, it means that because the wavefuction is a probability function and thanks to the mathematical structure of QM we don't require a specific operator given the input in order to ensure the correct transformation (a mathematical term which we can think of as a "rule" for assigning values given another mathematical entity called a "vector" in a mathematical space called "Hilbert space"). That is, because we aren't working with anything other than a mathematical entity that we've defined into existence given innumerable successful outcomes combined with a physical theory, and because we make that entity correspond to the allowed probabilities given particular preparation and specifications, it is a mathematical function that already "contains" all the information needed to apply whatever the rule for whatever (appropriate) operator we pick actually applies.

Quantum computing, though, gets even more devious here. As I'll cover in the next post, even the measurement apparatus becomes mathematical.

I will look at this but going back to the basics. It is as if your saying the quantum state is enough for the probabilty distribution. It isnt, only when the second slit is opened do we see the evidence of interference. So the math treats the particle went through both slits. Of course the obsever is mathematical. But you put the observer at the slits then it collpases at the slit, at the screen then collapses anywhere in the screen minus interference limitations, use telescopses it collapses there. It collpases anywhere we observe including places it "shouldnt" be. The photon gets interefered with with small or big target detectors. It acts as it knows because it is everywhere but chooses based on our detecting range, time and position. The qm experiments show we can choose the outcome, we can teach the particles to do what we want which turns random outcomes into determined desired results, else quantum computing would be worthless and would still be linear like regualr binary. Regular binary cannot be a one and zero simultaneously, a qubit can and some.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is as if your saying the quantum state is enough for the probabilty distribution.

I'm saying that the orthodox interpretation is that the "quantum state" (the wave function) is a probability distribution (well, the mod square is), and that we have nothing which can indicate anything to the contrary.

It isnt, only when the second slit is opened do we see the evidence of interference.

If light were a wave, you would see, there would be no interference when only one slit is open. Also, as intriguing and important as the double-slit experiment is, we have shown so much more. The double-slit experiment seems to indicate that a photon is in two places at one (it traverses both paths through the slit). That stopped being novel many decades ago, and since then we've shown systems composed of many hundreds of atoms in two places at once, demonstrated causal connections between systems separated by miles and miles that are instantaneous, explored quantum tunneling, and so much more.

I sympathize entirely with the view that there must be more with the math. But it is one thing to want this, and another thing to produce an argument or model that can demonstrate it is so.

So the math treats the particle went through both slits.

No. The math doesn't indicate there was ever a particle that went through any slit. The only way we can predict the measurements we have is by assuming there wasn't ever any particle until we measured it.

Of course the obsever is mathematical.

You're mathematical?

But you put the observer at the slits then it collpases at the slit

what is it? And why is it that we have no empirically demonstrated that we can not disturb the system as it passes through the slit until after it has, and determine after-the-fact whether we would have or didn't and thus determine after "it" has passed through the double-slit screen whether "it" is wave-like or particle-like. Again, we are able to arbitrarily decide after the interaction with the double-slit screen whether we detect something like a wave or like a particle.

It collpases anywhere we observe including places it "shouldnt" be.

It collapses only in places it can't be and not in places it must.

The photon gets interefered with with small or big target detectors.

When you kick a soccer ball or when I roll over a boulder, we interfere with these systems. The soccer ball doesn't suddenly behave like a particle because you kicked it. Interference isn't a property of particles (that is to say, particles can't exhibit interference effects).

It acts as if it knows because it is everywhere but chooses based on our detecting range, time and position.

Now that is interesting. How does it choose, and how can it choose to suddenly be that which it was not? Or, if it was always localized, how does it instantaneously appear where it cannot (and what, for that matter, is "it")?

The qm experiments show we can choose the outcome, we can teach the particles to do what we want which turns random outcomes into determined desired results, else quantum computing would be worthless and would still be linear like regualr binary.

1) It is widely known that quantum computing is absolutely equivalent in the mathematical sense to regular ol' computers. The difference is speed.
2) We can't teach particles anything. We can't determine any results, or QM would be deterministic.
3) We can't choose the outcome.

Regular binary cannot be a one and zero simultaneously, a qubit can and some.

A fuzzy number can simultaneously be infinitely many values. Until you relate qubits to physical systems in a way that makes this meaningful, then we're still just fooling with mathematical abstractions that we can or might be able to implement using a framework in which we don't ever measure or refer to physical systems until we "stop computing"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What does QM have to do with time?

Those who model physical systems, be they neuronal networks or solar systems, rely on continuous models the spatial coordinates of which are independent of changes in time intervals. QM, as a theory of mechanics, must also do so. However, we haven't the slightest idea as to how quantum systems behave over time. In fact, QM presents a serious challenge to the idea that "time" as we know it exists. As special relativity does this explicitly, the fact that QM does so independently is worthy of note.

 

[bobhikes]

Free will is not the proper description. What we have is the will to stop. Causation requires the causes to fall like domino's. All you need to do is stop the fall.

We do this by refusing to act on thoughts. Bob and Alice can perceive everything as you said but then decide to sit back down and ignore the rest.

This is possible because all events are random and in the now, logic was developed as a way to make sense of these events. Logically everything has a cause but logic is not present in the Now. Logic can only describe events that past or predict future events.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Free will is not the proper description.

Of what?

Causation requires the causes to fall like domino's

However, this is inconsistent with modern physics. It is not only fundamentally contradictory with TGR but so basically inaccurate with respect to quantum physics that one wonders how its usag even could be beneficial.

This is possible because all events are random

Which is false for every theory of mechanics and physics around.

Logically everything has a cause

Wrong.

 

[bobhikes]

Of what?


However, this is inconsistent with modern physics. It is not only fundamentally contradictory with TGR but so basically inaccurate with respect to quantum physics that one wonders how its usag even could be beneficial.



Which is false for every theory of mechanics and physics around.



Wrong.

I have read through more of your posts. You are using physics and the 4D to justify free will but Free will (I don't like the term) will is about logically changing the result. How does thought fit into the 4D. Is thought space time, length, width or height. Thought doesn't operate in space time but through events. In the now being this moment you can't have a thought but only a part of a thought. Thoughts can only exist over periods of space time. Does traveling the speed of light effect thought process's at all. In relativity it effects the 4D's as perceived but we can perceive a change. Why isn't thought effected.

 

[Sleeppy]

Those who model physical systems, be they neuronal networks or solar systems, rely on continuous models the spatial coordinates of which are independent of changes in time intervals. QM, as a theory of mechanics, must also do so. However, we haven't the slightest idea as to how quantum systems behave over time. In fact, QM presents a serious challenge to the idea that "time" as we know it exists. As special relativity does this explicitly, the fact that QM does so independently is worthy of note.

How does it challenge "time"? What exactly is it suggesting, in the most simplest terms?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How does it challenge "time"? What exactly is it suggesting, in the most simplest terms?

A 4D "static" universe in which everything that will happen has already happened and everything that has happened will happen, all depending on one's position within spacetime.

 

[idav]

A 4D "static" universe in which everything that will happen has already happened and everything that has happened will happen, all depending on one's position within spacetime.

The very thing that allows a thing to happen before it happens is what allows the freedom to do differently. That things are determined doesnt mean much if it is chosen due to all data being a collective in spacetime.