Who observes the Quantum observer?

If it's true that observing an object changes test results and makes electrons collapse into a wave function then where are all the observers?

If an electron can become an observer by being observed then how has anything managed to remain unobserved?

reply to post by Mozzy


It's not true.

This is not a three-word, one-line reply

Originally posted by Mozzy
If it's true that observing an object changes test results and makes electrons collapse into a wave function then where are all the observers?

If an electron can become an observer by being observed then how has anything managed to remain unobserved?

Good question and some people try to subscribe to many worlds to avoid the observer but it makes no sense.

Many worlds is still based on the observer because the observer has to make a choice within these universes in order for a split to occur or a transcendent consciousness has to regulate these many worlds.

It still goes to the observer.

Now to your question.

We know through non locality that observation can take place that transcends space and time. We know through experiments that non local collapse of the wave function can occur.

We don't have evidence that these invisible worlds are are making choices for us. Many worlds is a way for materialist to avoid the Observer.

We have evidence that the observer collapses the wave function but theirs no evedince that these many worlds exist or that there making all of these decisions for us which is silly.

What causes these splits to occur? When do they occur? Everytime I decide between coke and sprite does the universe split? Does these mean that I should grab the coke before another version of me grabs the coke in another universe? What about if I go to the pop machine, does a new universe form for every drink in the machine?

You can see the hole that you dig with many worlds but this is how far some will go to avoid the observer.

Your question is a very good one because if the universes were making these choices for us we would be in a constant state of collapse. From our point of view we would not be able to detect the wave function because the universes are making these choices for us.

The reason that things do not stay in an observed stated is because the Observer is non local therefore the observer is not bound by space and time.

The real kicker is that we are time-dependent observers so it's like saying "ye are gods."

reply to post by Dodecahedral


No, the many-worlds interpretation doesn't require an observer at all. It states when such a situation occurs, where previously an observer determined the outcome, the universe 'splits' in two - one for each outcome. No observer necessary. May I suggest you read the link I posted above?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Dodecahedral

 

No, the many-worlds interpretation doesn't require an observer at all. It states when such a situation occurs, where previously an observer determined the outcome, the universe 'splits' in two - one for each outcome. No observer necessary. May I suggest you read the link I posted above?

You just proved my point.

An observer had to make a choice to determine the outcome.

You just tried to omit the word choice but you can't avoid it. Who determined the outcome for the universe to split?

In many worlds the universe could never be because you need an observer to determine the choice of the next observer. Without an initial observer to cause the first split to occur there would be no universes.

Who was the first splitter of the universe? Who made the first choice? If the choice has to be determined by the preciding choice than their had to be a First Observer in order for the splits to occur.

This Observer would have to be an uncaused observer to start the splitting.

I know why some physicist like many worlds. It's because of materialism.

They just substitute consciousness with these infinite worlds. In my consciousness I can cover many possibilities even past possibilities.

I don't need a universe for all of these things just consciousness.

reply to post by Dodecahedral


What? Are you trying to be scientific or philosophical?

The other poster is correct, the two-worlds theory changes everything. There is no need for an observer, all things that can happen, do happen, but in parallel universes.

Well every thing must of at one time been observed by something else - an atom drifting on it's own in deepest darkest depths of space didn't just appear from no where, so in the past it's present out come would of been influenced. Does that make sense

Actually the point is kinda moot, cos my little friend the lonely atom is being 'observed' by the photons from distant stars... The photons are my little atoms only friends for now..

reply to post by Dodecahedral


Read. The. Link.

I said no such thing. You clearly don't understand the theory.

the quantum observer observes the quantumly observed... and is in tern quantumly observed by that which it observes... the cycle purpetuates itself endlessly

i know that sounds like gibberish but its true.

:-)

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Dodecahedral

 

Read. The. Link.

I said no such thing. You clearly don't understand the theory.

I do understand it and so do you but what you don't understand is that it doesn't support materialism.

Sadly, science has not been an honest broker. That's because they already know the end game and to them it's materialism.

These theories have to fit into a materialistic worldview or it's rejected.

For instance, Wheeler is a genius for his work on many worlds but when it comes to his belief in quantum immortality he's mistaken.

It's simple, if you get hit by a car here in another universe you live because you dodged the car and in another universe you will get hit by the car and hurt.

Wheeler would say the person who got hit by the car and died ceases to exist in that world but exist in the universe where he got hit in and hurt or the one where he dodged the car and lived.

Wheeler also said something interesting about It from Bit.

'It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.'

What has happened is the materialist see many worlds as a way of escaping the Observer.

The materialist want death and anyhing that suggest spirituality or metaphysics is looked down upon.

It's okay to accept invisible universes without any proof if it gets you materialism but to accept an invisible God or something spiritual is pie in the sky thinking.

There's no evidence that these worlds exist or their tied to wether I drink a coke or a sprite. It's silly

You said,

"No, the many-worlds interpretation doesn't require an observer at all. It states when such a situation occurs, where previously an observer determined the outcome, the universe 'splits' in two - one for each outcome. No observer necessary."

You just proved my point.

THE OBSERVER DETERMINED THE OUTCOME AND THE UNIVERSES SPLIT IN TWO BECAUSE OF THE OUTCOME DETERMINED BY THE OBSERVER!!!!!

See, your looking at it the correct way and this is how Wheeler saw MWI and this is why he accepted quantum immortality. He didn't remove consciousness from MWI.

The materialist removed consciousness from MWI in order to support their materialistic worldview.

So, the universe decides wether I drink a coke or sprite. The materialist view of MWI is extreme determinism. Everything you do is determined by the universes and your just a bystander.

The materialist are religious about their materialism because it's supports their worldview.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Dodecahedral]

The quantum observation is a mathematical construct for conveniently analyzing situations. It's actually impossible to make a true quantum observation, but it is possible force situations in which the conditions of an observation occur, and the results can be observed.

After all, nobody can directly observe an electron. Due to the nature of waves and matter, you need something with a smaller wavelength than the particle you're trying to observe, so in order to successfully observe an electron, you'll need either very high energy light, or another electron. The light or electron is the observer, and we infer data about the electron being observed by recording data from the electron or light that serves as the observer, generally through film or a phosphor.

By using a clever arrangment of electron guns, it is possible to observe which of a pair of slits an electron travels through, but in doing so, the observed particle has it's path altered, so it takes on a deterministic path.

a quantum observation consists of any interaction in which information about one of the interacting things is transferred to the other. The uncertainty principle naturally arises from this, because by the very nature of the universe you cannot observe anything without interacting with it, and you cannot interact with it without altering it. So naturally through math, it arises that the more accurately you know something's position, the less accurately you know it's momentum, and vice versa.

This of course, makes every interacting particle an observer to everything else it interacts with.

EDIT: to answer the title, WE observe the hypothetical quantum observer, which includes every particle and wave ever to interact with another in a meaningful way. By observing the actual observations, we as conscious beings do not change the result of a quantum system. The quantum interactions that make up a primary observation, however, do change the result.

As humans, our second-hand observations of quantum systems are not special; they hold no special significance in quantum theory. They do, however, allow us to see the results of observation, furthering our knowledge of the concept.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by mdiinican]

reply to post by mdiinican


I read this post and my jaw dropped but I'm glad you posted it.

This thread highlights what's wrong with the scientific establishment. They seek materialism at all cost and they are building a tower of Babel. They are trying to build a world free of God, Spirit or any transcendent reality.

Basically what you are saying is the observer is just a mathematical construct and it's not real or it's hypothetical.

This is pure opinion passed off as fact.

The last line of the post sums up everything.

"As humans, our second-hand observations of quantum systems are not special; they hold no special significance in quantum theory. They do, however, allow us to see the results of observation, furthering our knowledge of the concept."

We are second hand bystanders and this is the main goal of many in physics. They want to regulate humans to slaves of the material world.

Yes, a transcendent observer can directly observe the electron and this is where all of the experiments and equations point to.

Time and time again we see transcendence but the materialist tries to say these things are not real, or there mathematical constructs.

HOW SILLY AND CONVENIENT THIS SOUNDS TO SUPPORT A MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW!!

So, non locality, EPR paradox, holographic principle, parallel universes, the double slit experiment, the probability wave, imaginary numbers, imaginary time, schrodinger's time-independent equation all point to transcendence but it's all just mathematical.

See the pattern? Anything that doesn't agree with their materialistic worldview is just hypothetical and a mathematical construct.

You look at things like infinities. Physicist have to cancel out infinities through renormalization and some will say these infinities don't exist because they can't quantify it.

Well, that's what the transcendent reality is. You can't quantify it but materialist think if you can't quantify it, then it doesn't exist. It's just hypothetical.

See how illogical this reasoning is?

This goes back to Plato and the Allegory of the cave. There's people who can't accept this truth because they need materialism to hold on to their atheism, secularism or some other ism.

When we reach Planck's constant our classical physics breaks down. Our reality is not objective.

What's sad is that materialism has become a religion.

There's a ying and yang or a balance between transcendence and immanence and we are losing this truth through the dogma of materialism.

You said:

"a quantum observation consists of any interaction in which information about one of the interacting things is transferred to the other."

Yes, and we know that this can occur through non local transcendence. It's what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance."

So a particle can be in California and the other particle in New York and when you measure the particle in California a non local collapse occurs instantly in New York that corresponds to the measurement in California.

Schrodinger said:

"It's rather discomforting that the [quantum] theory should allow a system to be steered or piloted into one or the other type of state at the experimenter's mercy in spite of him having no access to it."

Consciousness transcends space and time and is non local. An observer in California can collapse the wave function of a particle in New York.

Again, experiments and equations point to a transcendent reality that we can't quantify. The materialist want a world that supports their materialism and that's not good.

reply to post by Dodecahedral


Oh jeez. I thought we were talking about science, not some paranoid fantasy devoid of any substantiating evidence. My bad. Feel free to continue making stuff up - I'll leave this discussion alone.

reply to post by dave420


Of course I'm talking science it's just you don't agree with it because science does not support materialism but it shows that there's a transcendent reality that's without measure and you can't quantify it.

At Planck's Constant classical physics breaks down and it's just one infinite whole that you can't quantify exists.

This has been observed in experiments and it shows up in equations.

This is science.

Einstein said the difference between past, present and future is just a persistent illusion.

Stephen Hawking talks about Real time and Imaginary time and he says imaginary time is more real than the time that we experience.

So, if the distinction between time is an illusion, how can there be an objective material reality beyond your perception?

This is science.

The thing is, you and others see materialism where materialism doesn't exist. It's just your perception.

Science tells us this over and over through experiments and equations but the materialist want to build a worldview around materialism so they will ignore these things because they don't fit their materialist view of reality.

well i don't know about all that but i'm sure einstein doesn't see his present as subjective anymore. i'm sure he's got a point but there appears to be more to it than that.

imagine if humans had the ability to see across the electromagnetic spectrum all the time. what could we discover? alot, but we dont. we use tools to show what the universe is made of. maybe our tools are not good enough. we could just start to unravel the mysteries of the universe with the LHC. just because something doesnt appear to be there doesnt mean its not there.

as for the question: its a system, its going to happen regardless if there is an observer or not

reply to post by Dodecahedral

If what you say is true, then a living observer has to exist in order for any quantum phenomenon to take place.

And of course, every event in the universe is a quantum event.

So... who observed the evolution of the universe before life appeared in it? Who observed the Big Bang?

Come on, my twelve-faced friend: put your cards on the table.

Edit to add: brilliant post, mdiinican

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Dodecahedral

 

If what you say is true, then a living observer has to exist in order for any quantum phenomenon to take place.

And of course, every event in the universe is a quantum event.

So... who observed the evolution of the universe before life appeared in it? Who observed the Big Bang?

Come on, my twelve-faced friend: put your cards on the table.

Edit to add: brilliant post, mdiinican

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Astyanax]

I have said this over and over.

The observer making a choice causes a quantum event to occur.

This is the only evidence that we have. There's no evidence that parallel universes have anything to do with our choices.

Some materalist have looked at quantum decoherence and made a huge leap because they can't explain the observer.

All decoherence tells us is that when we make a choice it's irrerservable. Decoherence does not say anything about the choices we make and that these universes form whenever we make a choice.

Some try try to tie choice to decoherence and that's just silly. Decoherence has nothing to with the choices that we make and there's not a shred of evidence that supports this notion.

Our animals included in this choice? Everytime my dog wants to go outside does the universe split and there's a universe where he stays inside and takes a nap?

When does the split occur? If animals can't cause a split to occur what in humans gives them "special powers" to cause a split to occur?

What we do know is that consciousness can cause a split to occur and this can happen non-locally.

This is what every experiment tells us. There's transcendent reality that you can't quantify.

Some reject this not on the grounds of physics but because of there personal belief.

Non-localty, Schrodingers equations, zero point energy, Copenhagen and more all point to a transcendent infiite reality that you can't quantify.

This is physics and not the science fiction that every choice has to occur in a parallel uiverse and even then it's left up to the CHOICE of the observer.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Dodecahedral]

Originally posted by Dodecahedral
I don't need a universe for all of these things just consciousness.

Interesting point. Consciousness is all we've ever really needed to experience the world around us. Without that consciousness, can you say you really exist at all?

It's definitely strange that things act differently while being observed. I mean, is the electron conscious or aware in some way? Or are we unwittingly influencing the electron as we observe it?

How does that happen? There's no physical contact. So, humans either have the ability to influence things in the physical world with conscious thought, electrons are aware, conscious "beings," or this is really just all in our heads. I vote for the latter.