I haven't read this whole thread but I did read most of the first post and I can say this (apologies if someone else already said it): you have missed the point of the two slit experiment. The defraction pattern occurs because of the photons' interactions with one another (either re-enforcing their wavelengths or cancelling them out). It is obvious by the last picture that they are not randomly hitting the screen. But the two slit experiment goes a step further and sends photons (and in later experiments electrons and then protons) through the experiment individually. The fact that the defraction pattern still occurs is the mystery. If the pattern is accounted for by the individual particles interacting with each other how can the pattern occur when the particles are sent through individually without another particle to interact with? Unless they interact with themselves which would seem logically impossible by our macro understanding of reality and what the word particle means. What deepens the mystery further is that if you set a detector on the slits to see which slit the particle actually goes through then you lose the defraction pattern. One particle is sent in, one particle is detected going through one and only one slit and after a large number of particles are sent through, no interaction occurs and the placment of dots on the screen is truly random.
The last picture is an accumulation of hits. I am not disputing the fact that depending on the measurement (observation) electrons of photons have particle or wave like character. If you measure wave like character you get waves if you measure a particle property like position you get particle. Its even weirder that you can make this decision about the photon or electron even after it has left its source.
However the double split wave pattern will still come about as a result of statistical probability the more photons you wack it with. At first it appears random but as you hit the detectors more and more you get a double split wave interference picture comes into view. That's what the picture is showing.
I am saying the duality is misleading because they are the same but why call it a wavicle?
So whats waving?
The statistical distribution of many particle detections.
Lets quote two famous physicists who know way more then me on it (all from wiki so check the source but ive heard it elsewhere).
Richard Feynmann.
It's rather interesting to note that electrons looked like particles at first, and their wavish character was later discovered. On the other hand, apart from Newton making a mistake and thinking that light was "corpuscular," light looked like waves at first, and its characteristics as a particle were discovered later. In fact, both objects behave somewhat like waves, and somewhat like particles. In order to save ourselves from inventing new words such as "wavicles," we have chosen to call these objects "particles," but we all know that they obey these rules for drawing and combining arrows [representing complex values of wave functions] that I have been explaining. It appears that all the "particles" in Nature—quarks, gluons, neutrinos, and so forth (which will be discussed in the next lecture)—behave in this quantum mechanical way. [Emphasis as in the original]
L Ballentine
When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are "particles" really "waves?" In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to observe them. That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura et al., 1989). Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect.
For someone advancing the scientism viewpoint you do not have a very solid understanding of the science you are referencing. Quantum mechanics decidedly does not say that things happen without cause. It says that things happen according to probabilistic tendencies.
By without cause I mean the universe at the quantum level is indeterministic.
You actually failed to address the question Saidin brought up of what role consciousness does or does not play in the collapse of the wave function. By definition the wave function collapse happens when the probability wave interacts in some way with the external world and the superposition of states resolves into a single defined state, which in this case is when it is measured by a conscious observer. Because the decision to measure or not to measure (or even what to measure) is made by consciousness, it would seem to suggest that that same consciousness has the final say in just if the wave function will collapse or not, which is the same thing as saying consciousness will decide if the particle will lose its superposition of states and resolve to a single state or not. In other words consciousness seems to have control over the quantum state of the object.
I believe this to be incorrect for the following reason.
Shrodingers wave formalism represents a wave as an abstract mathematical quantity. It gives the probability of finding a particle at a certain space at a certain time.
Realize though that the name wave function is a misnomer. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics its an abstract mathematical thing just as much. The wave function was developed because when it was developed the only examples were in the form of waves. Paul Dirac's has another mathematical formalism which represents quantum states by vector in abstract multidimensional space. It doesn't matter which one you use they all give the same indeterministic statistical results.
The fact is that even physicists are stuck as to explain the role of consciousness in this process. Some find it distasteful to think that consciousness could be involved and theorize that it is not (the majority), some like the idea and theorize that it is (the minority), and then some take great liberty with the facts and theorize that it means consciousness creates all of reality (not necessarily speaking of physicists in that last group). But the truth is that we do not know.
I am saying there is no evidence for a role of consciousness for because the reasons people use to say that consciousness plays a role are wrong and incorrect (which I've stated already). Also how do you explain the universe before there was human being with consciousness's walking around? How could anything exist? It must have though because we are here.
But there is something else wrong with your representation. The wave function is not just a “mathematical abstraction” it was the attempt to give accurate predictions to experiments that seemed to be violating the rules of classical physics. And it succeeded entirely in doing so. But explaining why it does succeed is where science has so far fallen short. How can a “particle” exist in a superposition of states in the first place? And how come every single time we check, without exception, we find that it does not exist in a superposition of states and instead exists in a specific state? The fact that single particles can be sent through the two slit experiment, and as long as we do not measure which slit they actually go through, will create an interference pattern supports the claim that they actually and truly exist in the superposition of states and not that the probability wave just describes a range of probabilities of where it might be found. The point is that quantum physics is saying that the particle does not have a defined location until we measure it, it is specifically not saying that we just don’t know it any better than probabilistically. Which again begs the question, what is so special about our measuring it that it actually gives the object a specific defined location when before it had none?
Look the idea that consciousness is causing it has no basis. An observer could be a stupid Geiger counter. The path of a particle cannot be determined unless its measured. What that means is that you do not decide the value of that measurement you merely observe that value which follows a probabalistic distribution.
I agree entirely as long as we are talking about the material world. But science can say absolutely nothing about consciousness/subjectivity and it cannot make qualitative judgments. So for example, where is the scientific evidence that honesty or compassion are better than dishonesty or cruelty? In fact I would guess that if you consider only the basis of survival or advantages to self, you would find that the scientific evidence would suggest that honesty and compassion are liabilities, especially when dealing with others who are neither honest nor compassionate. I however will tell you that based on my own knowledge obtained by purely spiritual methods, honesty and compassion are far superior to dishonesty and cruelty.
Science can't say whether dishonesty is better then compassion. Science can evaluate things about dishonest or honest people and societies but only we humans can make the judgement. Regardless it makes perfect sense that human beings evolved the ability to love and feel compassion for others in their group. It vastly benefited survival and increased cooperation. Its a positive trait in an evolutionary sense. That's why it feels right to most of us.
To which I again must ask you, where is your scientific evidence that only scientific knowledge is valid knowledge? If spirituality is forced to prove itself scientifically then science itself should be forced to do so first.
I don't need science to tell me that if I throw a rock in a pool its going to make a splash. That's just what I noticed always happens. That's way different then saying because I saw a ghost that means it was real.
Just to be clear, despite my critique of your knowledge of quantum physics, at least as represented in this thread, I am a believer in science. But having said that, I also do not believe that science is the only game in town. I see an almost zealot-like endorsement of scientism in this thread and I think you would do well to see that science is not the appropriate tool to examine matters that do not pertain to the material world. If on the other hand you want to suggest that the material world is the only world worth talking about then again I am going to have to ask you to scientifically prove it for me to even consider that notion to be worthy of consideration.
That assumes there is something beyond the material world. You consider consciousness to be beyond the material world. How can we say that consciousness exists beyond the material world when all evidence shows how our conscious experience is a result of the material world (our brain interacting with its environment in space and time).
Subjectivity, my experience, is completely valid to me. Science cannot measure it or detect it, it cannot say if it is accurate or not. But having had spiritual experiences I can tell you that it absolutely is valid. Science can make no value statements about using scientifically acquired knowledge to make power plants or to kill millions in a nuclear flash, but I can tell you from my spiritual perspective that it matters. I can also tell you that I have spiritually apprehended that there is a divine mystery at work in this universe, a sacred, spiritual, something. Just because science cannot validate my claim, does not make it an invalid claim. It just means that science is inadequate to judge the claim in the first place.
Assuming I have good eyes when they are open they get light this light our brain paints a picture with. Thus we are subjectivily experience the picture the light is painting in our brain. When your eyes are closed you don't see that light and you don't project an image of that light. You see my subjective experience changes as a result of objective reality. Its that simple.
I am not saying your claim is invalid. There is something at work in the universe. You just happen to call it divine which to me suggests non material or beyond reality. I see no reason to suggest that our universe is beyond reality or made up of anything non material (matter and energy even in forms we do not yet understand).
it is when you say that you have disproven it as the basis of your argument... and yoru not going to disprove it, but you can help people formulate better questions.
I said QM doesn't provide any evidence for ghosts or universal consciousness. I stated the reasons people say it goes. Those reasons are not correct.
