Is matter self conciouss?

[Forward Union]

I'm of course referring to the double slit experiment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

[Picky Bugger]

Inferring human qualities such as consciousness onto matter could be dangerous and it is certain to cause confusion with some people.

I do not express a large knowledge on such Quantum physics etc but there is clearly something else going on, the matter itself does not have a conscience.

[9]

I have no idea what the explanation is, but questions like this keep my up at night.:drool:

[Forward Union]

I do not express a large knowledge on such Quantum physics etc but there is clearly something else going on, the matter itself does not have a conscience.

Of course, I was speaking tongue in cheek. But the matter certainly does appear to be self-conciouss.


But the fact that matter either acts like "marbles or waves" depending on whether it's being watched or not is itself incredible.

It's been established that the any act of measuring things within an experiment can distort the result, or make a result impossible (hiesenburgs uncertaintly principal for example)

But how can simple observation collapse the entire nature of particles? When observed it acts normally, when not observed it seems to break down our entire understanding of physics...

Have people read any good hypothesise on this?

[Picky Bugger]

Of course, I was speaking tongue in cheek. But the matter certainly does appear to be self-conciouss.

Was just making sure :p


But the fact that matter either acts like "marbles or waves" depending on whether it's being watched or not is itself incredible.

It's been established that the any act of measuring things within an experiment can distort the result, or make a result impossible (hiesenburgs uncertaintly principal for example)

But how can simple observation collapse the entire nature of particles? When observed it acts normally, when not observed it seems to break down our entire understanding of physics...It could be entirely possible that the observation is a red herring, it did not say how many times the experiment was/ has been carried out but it was presented in manner that it only happened once, of course it is unlikely that this is the case.

It seems more likely that there is some sort of interference but what and how it affects the electrons I do not know.

[RebelDog]

It doesn't even have to be 'observation'. Not observing something can change it. Nobody has any real idea why what happens in the quantum world is so different than our macroworld. It may take thousands of years to solve it, if it can be solved. What is needed in particle physics right now is some major breakthrough somewhere, most importantly would be a quantum theory of gravity and then we would see a great leap forward. Don't hold your breath.

[black magick hustla]

Of course, I was speaking tongue in cheek. But the matter certainly does appear to be self-conciouss.


But the fact that matter either acts like "marbles or waves" depending on whether it's being watched or not is itself incredible.

It's been established that the any act of measuring things within an experiment can distort the result, or make a result impossible (hiesenburgs uncertaintly principal for example)

But how can simple observation collapse the entire nature of particles? When observed it acts normally, when not observed it seems to break down our entire understanding of physics...

Have people read any good hypothesise on this?

It doesnt act as "marble or waves", it acts as both.

Let me explain a little bit....

Basically all matter, including yourself, has a wavelength assigned to them. the wavelength is lamda=(h/(m*v)) where lamda is a wavelength, m is mass, and h is plancks constant and v is velocity. So you can find the wavelength associated with yourself by doing a simple algebraic excersize. The problem is that h is a tiny constant. It is 6.626*10^(-34) J*s^(-1). So we are talking about a number that has 33 zeroes behind it. So if you are a person, lamda is going to be so small that any quantum effects would be undetectable. however theoretically, every time you walk through a door you actually "diffract" like all other waves.

Tiny particles exibit detectable wavelengths simply because there mass is so small that we can actually get detectable wavelengths if we do the algebra. For an electron, for example, the wavelength is generally in the magnitude of 10^(-10) m, which is still pretty darn small (one more zero to the left than the general wavelength of visible light) but at this size it is detectable.

This wavelength is what makes quantum mechanics so odd and silly.

When you pass electrons through a diffraction slit, there is associated waves with them and they will interfere both constructively and destructively - in the largest amplitudes is where we are mostly likely to find the electron if we measure. Now, keep in mind that matter waves are not real waves, but mathematical constructs - they are probability waves. So its not that "the electron" knows when you measure it. It is just that before measuring, we did not know where the electron was
(but we had a clue), and after measuring now we know where it is. Hence when we measure the wavefunction collapses because now we are not dealing with probability waves but know where the particle is.

This is my interpretation, of course. there is a gazillion interpretations and some wackier and more mystical than the others - but i believe my interpretation is the most popular one. For example a few people think matter waves are "real waves" like light waves.


So in short. you should drop the whole army shit and go to state college and study physics cuz its so cool.

[black magick hustla]

It doesn't even have to be 'observation'. Not observing something can change it. Nobody has any real idea why what happens in the quantum world is so different than our macroworld. It may take thousands of years to solve it, if it can be solved. What is needed in particle physics right now is some major breakthrough somewhere, most importantly would be a quantum theory of gravity and then we would see a great leap forward. Don't hold your breath.

its not so "different" than our macroworld. the macroworld is subject to quantum mechanics too but big masses have so small wavelengths that the quantum effects are undetectable.

[ckaihatsu]

It doesnt act as "marble or waves", it acts as both.





This wavelength is what makes quantum mechanics so odd and silly.

When you pass electrons through a diffraction slit, there is associated waves with them and they will interfere both constructively and destructively - in the largest amplitudes is where we are mostly likely to find the electron if we measure.





Now, keep in mind that matter waves are not real waves, but mathematical constructs - they are probability waves.


But according to the video the electrons exhibit the behavior of *real* diffraction waves, even when they're launched * one at a time * -- thereby eliminating *any* chance of inter-particle influence.





So its not that "the electron" knows when you measure it. It is just that before measuring, we did not know where the electron was
(but we had a clue), and after measuring now we know where it is.

Hence when we measure the wavefunction collapses because now we are not dealing with probability waves but know where the particle is.



But the electrons *were* measured in *both* scenarios, in that they were tracked by seeing where they landed on the backboard. In the first scenario they were launched in groups of electrons, and, in the second scenario, they were launched one-at-a-time, through the double slits.

This isn't some procedural sleight-of-hand, as you're suggesting -- according to the experiment the question still remains as to how the act of observation changed the behavior of the electrons to act like solid particles (and create two discrete bands) instead of as waves (to produce a diffraction pattern).

My own guess would be that inserting an observer would change the overall makeup of the wave-field in that local area, so maybe that's how it's affecting it...?

The weirdest part, though, is how the *individual* electrons would still behave *individually* in a wave formulation, even though there aren't any other electrons nearby to act on them to build up the constructive areas, or to interfere with them to produce the destructive areas. We would expect *individual* bits of matter to behave in an *individual* *particle* manner -- like a ball -- and *not* produce a cumulative wave diffraction pattern over time with many individual, separate particles launched in series.



It doesn't even have to be 'observation'. Not observing something can change it. Nobody has any real idea why what happens in the quantum world is so different than our macroworld. It may take thousands of years to solve it, if it can be solved. What is needed in particle physics right now is some major breakthrough somewhere, most importantly would be a quantum theory of gravity and then we would see a great leap forward. Don't hold your breath.


I've run into the theory that gravity is just simple ionic attraction -- there's plenty of exposure and treatment of electromagnetism (free electrons), but hardly any for ionization and ionic energy (charged atomic nuclei)....


Chris




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[mikelepore]

It's not observation that causes the wave function to collapse. It's contact with anything macroscopic that causes it. Observation is a form of contact with something macroscopic. It will also happen when a particle reaches the wall, or if it collides with a speck of dust. In Young's double-slit experiment, the particles are probability waves when they go through the slits, and acquire exact positions when they hit the screen.

[Pogue]

I'm of course referring to the double slit experiment

DfPeprQ7oGc

Geek!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The only way to understand this thread title is "Does matter get embarrassed easily?"

Not that I've noticed.

Sand, for example, can sit on a beach for ages and hardly blush at all.

[Forward Union]

My own guess would be that inserting an observer would change the overall makeup of the wave-field in that local area, so maybe that's how it's affecting it...?

I agree. But the idea that observing can have such an impact...

It's like, if observing the speed at which a ball falls meant that it stops falling.

[RebelDog]

It's not observation that causes the wave function to collapse. It's contact with anything macroscopic that causes it. Observation is a form of contact with something macroscopic. It will also happen when a particle reaches the wall, or if it collides with a speck of dust. In Young's double-slit experiment, the particles are probability waves when they go through the slits, and acquire exact positions when they hit the screen.

It is observation. The particles act differently when observed.

[mikelepore]

It is observation. The particles act differently when observed.

What happens if the fringe pattern from a diffraction experiment is produced on a photographic plate, but then the photo is put away without anyone looking at it? After a month, someone takes the photo off the shelf and looks at it for the first time. Does the act of looking at the picture send a signal back in time one month and cause the photons to reach certain spots on the film?

[Black Sheep]

But how can simple observation collapse the entire nature of particles? When observed it acts normally, when not observed it seems to break down our entire understanding of physics...
I thought the general explanation for that is the quantum uncertainty thing (very scientific ,yeah).
That we cannot determine with 100% precision the speed and the position of something,and by observing we light the object, thus shooting it with electromagnetic waves (light), which distorts its speed/place.

oh:

In quantum physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics), the Heisenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg) uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time. The narrower the probability distribution for one, the wider it is for the other.
In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by a wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality). The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.
The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of measurements, which involves collapse of the wavefunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_wavefunction). When the position is measured, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump near the measured value, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement. The amount of left-over uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit set by the uncertainty principle, no matter what the measurement process.
This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29), with which it is often conflated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflated). The uncertainty principle sets a lower limit to how small the momentum disturbance in an accurate position experiment can be, and vice versa for momentum experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[mikelepore]

That we cannot determine with 100% precision the speed and the position of something,

That's right -- not both at the same time. We can find a particle's position with an arbitrary amount of greater accuracy, but then its momentum becomes more uncertain. We can find its momentum with an arbitrary amount of greater accuracy, but then its position becomes more uncertain. The product of the two terms multiplied, the uncertainty in its position and uncertain in its momentum, can't be less than a certain constant. (In the same way that position and momentum are an uncertainty pair, energy and time are another pair -- an increasing precision of one reduces the precision of the other.)


and by observing we light the object, thus shooting it with electromagnetic waves (light), which distorts its speed/place.

Schrodinger, developer of the wave equation, explained it that way himself, in term of disturbing something while trying to measuring it. In one of his essays, in his book "What is Life? - and Other Scientific Essays", he wrote that trying to use light to observe what a subatomic particle is doing is "like trying to feel a ping pong ball with a bulldozer."

Max Born suggested a different interpretation to Schrodinger's equation. Born said that the particle doesn't even have any particular position and momentum until something depends on it. If you make anything depend on its position or momentum, that it, if it has to trigger a Geiger counter, cause a chemical reaction, etc., immediately it is found to have a particular state, whereas before it was only a distribution of probability. The fact that not only single particles but also objects as large as molecules have been found to exhibit their wave properties, constructive and destructive interference, suggests that Born was correct.

Most popular science paperback writers and their fans go immediately for the idealist interpetation. Instead if realizing that "observer" means anything at all that depends on the state, they think it means a human being. They even misstate the point of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Schrodinger intended it as an irony to point out the self-contradiction of the idealist "Copenhagen" interpretation, and to point out that the cat is a perfectly good observer, and so is the particle counter that kills the cat.

As the book "Quantum Enigma" by Kuttner and Rosenblum points out, the gravity of the moon that pulls on the ocean also pulls on the Schrondinger's Cat, and pulls on it differently if it's standing up alive or lying down dead, so the suggestion that anything macroscopic could remain in a superposition state for an appreciable amount of time is unreasonable.

Opinion by M. Lepore

P.S. -- Weird trivium: singer Olivia Newton-John, John Travolta's costar in the movie "Grease", is Max Born's granddaughter.