Wavefunction Collapse and Dreams

[Polymath257]

It is not.

Reality makes no distinctions between the worlds.

Actually, it does because Planck's constant is *small*. And entanglement, along with other quantum effects, are determined by the size of that constant.

In particular, entanglement is an incredibly difficult state to maintain. it usually takes temperatures close to absolute zero and minimal interaction with an external environment. Neither of those conditions is found in the living brain.

 

[Polymath257]

In order for wave function to work - and for psi to have value - the phase element must exist outside the physical universe. Even if only as an abstract concept.

Jerome Cardano, the 16th Century mathematician who pioneered probability theory, and the use of impossible numbers (the sq root of -1), postulated an inaccessible dimension within which information and intelligences dwell. He called this the Aevum.

Quantum theorists such as Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger all wrestled with the concept of quantum factors which can only exist beyond time and space, but which were necessary to make their theories work .

psi in Schrodinger’s equation effectively inhabits a realm outside time and space, something known to physicists as Hilbert space - an abstract space of unlimited dimensions attributed to David Hilbert.

Eeek. Not quite how it works. The Hilbert space is a space of *wave functions* and those wave functions have space and time as their parameters. To say they are 'outside of space and time' is wrong on a number of levels.

Alternatively, you can focus on the operators (observables). And these change with space and time.

 

[Polymath257]

Well some including Nobel Prize winner in Physics DR. Robert Penrose believe that quantum effects produce consciousness and underlie Free Will.

From Wikipedia:

Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a controversial hypothesis that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist and psychologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]

Frankly, both Penrose and Hammerhoff seem to have gone off the deep end with these speculations. Microtubules operate at a MUCH larger level than the quantum, and much, much larger than that for quantum gravity.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Actually, it does because Planck's constant is *small*. And entanglement, along with other quantum effects, are determined by the size of that constant.

In particular, entanglement is an incredibly difficult state to maintain. it usually takes temperatures close to absolute zero and minimal interaction with an external environment. Neither of those conditions is found in the living brain.

I've read articles that birds navigate through quantum entanglement, and sense of smell based on the same... Have you heard of such?

 

[Polymath257]

Ha, yeah. I’ve never managed to finish A Brief History of Time - not yet anyway - and I’ve had the book for over 20 years. Whether Rovelli is Hawking’s equal intellectually, I honestly couldn’t say; but as a writer, he’s way more accessible.

Wave and phase are abstractions aren’t they? Abstractions which work and which stand up to mathematical interrogation; but at the sub atomic level, wave is a metaphor for the way particles behave. And they appear to behave differently when they are being observed, which is the real head spinner.

How much 'reality' to give the wave function is a matter of debate. There are certainly some aspects that can be observed using 'weak measurements'. There are also some experimental results that seem to point to needing to say the wave function is 'actually real'. Some care is needed, though, because terminology can be an issue (what does it mean to be 'real'?)

And no, particles DO NOT act differently depending on whether they are observed or not. They act differently depending on whether they *interact* with other things in their environment.

For example, in the classical double slit experiment, the interference pattern disappears when the electrons going through the slits interact with photons that give 'which slit' information. If the wavelength of the photons is too large to give such information, the interference pattern returns. No conscious observer is required to collect the information showing the 'quantum strangeness': only photon or electron detectors.

And, to *detect* anything requires *interaction*, which changes behavior.

 

[George-ananda]

Frankly, both Penrose and Hammerhoff seem to have gone off the deep end with these speculations. Microtubules operate at a MUCH larger level than the quantum, and much, much larger than that for quantum gravity.

Well, I'll leave Penrose and Hammerhoff to respond to your concerns. They are better versed in that than me.

 

[JoshuaTree]

@Polymath257

A quantum sense of smell – Physics World

... Inelastic quantum tunneling not entanglement, my bad.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay then. Though I think the jury may still be out on this noumenon and phenomenon thing; both scientifically and philosophically.

But let’s say that at a the sub atomic level, particles appear to behave differently when they are being observed. And that a photon, for example, doesn’t apparently exist at all until it is measured.

No. Once again, the difference is between those particles that *interact* (say, with a detector) and those that do not.

Isn’t this what is meant by the ‘collapse’ of wave function? The collapse is from a position of infinite possibility into a defined state?

Again, not quite. The pre-collapse wave function need not have 'infinite possibility'. In fact, quite often it has only one or two possibilities. Once a 'permanent' record of a state is made (by an interaction), there are two *equivalent* ways to look at things: one has the wave function continuing after being modified by the interaction. The other has a very different, projected (collapsed) wave function continuing after the interaction. The key seems to be the irreversibility of the interaction, not whether or not there is a conscious observer.

Interestingly enough, this irreversibility may well be linked to the entropy increase required for certain types of interaction.

 

[JoshuaTree]

@Polymath257

A bird’s eye view of quantum entanglement

...this mentions entanglement, might not be what physicists consider entanglement though.

 

[Polymath257]

I've read articles that birds navigate through quantum entanglement, and sense of smell based on the same... Have you heard of such?

And there is entanglement involved in photosynthesis at some crucial stages. But in all of these, the crucial interactions are very brief and localized. Penrose and Hammerhoff envisioned a quantum superposition spread over the whole brain (as opposed to within a single molecule, where the small size of Planck's constant isn't a constraint).

In essence, the entanglement locally changes the chemistry slightly, leading to the other effects. That is NOT close to what was proposed for the 'quantum brain' theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I'll leave Penrose and Hammerhoff to respond to your concerns. They are better versed in that than me.

And the observations (mentioned above) show their ideas were simply wrong.

 

[George-ananda]

And the observations (mentioned above) show their ideas were simply wrong.

My point was I will let them defend themselves and step back and not just accept your 'simply wrong' claim. Do they agree that they are 'simply wrong'? If not, then I am in no position to referee.

 

[Polymath257]

My point was I will let them defend themselves and step back and not just accept your 'simply wrong' claim. Do they agree that they are 'simply wrong'? If not, then I am in no position to referee.

At this point, the consensus is that they are wrong. That is sufficient, given the evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

At this point, the consensus is that they are wrong. That is sufficient, given the evidence.

Sufficient? It strikes me that the consensus opinion can flip decades later.

 

[RestlessSoul]

On the subject of entanglement and the application thereof....

Major Scientific Leap: Quantum Microscope Created That Can See the Impossible – SciTechDaily

 

[RestlessSoul]

Eeek. Not quite how it works. The Hilbert space is a space of *wave functions* and those wave functions have space and time as their parameters. To say they are 'outside of space and time' is wrong on a number of levels.

Alternatively, you can focus on the operators (observables). And these change with space and time.

Nevertheless, in order to try to make sense of the observable, material world, we have to be willing to step outside of its parameters , and make room in our calculations for the seemingly impossible, irrational or unimaginable. And this appears to have been true since man first gazed at the stars.

 

[Polymath257]

Nevertheless, in order to try to make sense of the observable, material world, we have to be willing to step outside of its parameters , and make room in our calculations for the seemingly impossible, irrational or unimaginable. And this appears to have been true since man first gazed at the stars.

I don't see using a wave function as doing that any more than using any other sort of math is. Do we 'step outside of the parameters of the material world' when we use math to find the area of a field?

The calculations in QM are not impossible, irrational, nor unimaginable. There consequences are counter-intuitive for those who are accustomed to classical physics and the assumptions of some out-moded philosophies, but there is nothing 'non-material' going on in QM any more than there was in classical physics.

The point is that QM *describes* the material world. The material world may not act as some philosophies have thought it *needed* to act, but that is a fault in those philosophies, not in the material world.

 

[Polymath257]

On the subject of entanglement and the application thereof....

Major Scientific Leap: Quantum Microscope Created That Can See the Impossible – SciTechDaily

Yes, the real world works via the laws of Quantum Mechanics. We are now at the place where we can use those laws to get new technologies. The laws may be counter-intuitive to many, but they are understood and are not mysterious.

But it is cool we are using them for things like this.

 

[Polymath257]

Sufficient? It strikes me that the consensus opinion can flip decades later.

Not when the actual observations go as they have here.

Maybe in an entirely different formulation, there might be a hint of the idea left, but the evidence we have now isn't ambiguous.

 

[JoshuaTree]

@Polymath257

Quantum Entanglement Has Now Been Directly Observed at a Larger Macroscopic Scale

...just throwing this out there, I dunno.