Closer To Truth – Physics of the Observer
Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events?
Click here to watch more interviews on the physics of the observer http://bit.ly/2xhCcfQ
Click here to watch more interviews with Laura Mersini-Houghton http://bit.ly/2xl8VG0
Click here to visit our website http://bit.ly/2xUAZgc
Click here to visit our main channel http://bit.ly/2xhIJXG
Source
Very nice
Do we need an Observer for each wave function to make it collapse .. so how many observers we need to make a universe ?
The interviewer is impatient and interrupts her too much. Not good.
OK! I understand You want to discuss the one of the contradiction between the quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, i.e. between Einstein and wave equation of Schrodinger and the determination of this equality and its interpretation by Max Born as a probability of some quantum process to happen, which is supported by Nils Bohr and other. I gave the answer of this physical problem in my theory USM http://www.kanevuniverse.com , but here I try to make summary of this answer. So let begin with the equality of uncertainty which follows by the experiments of diffraction of any particles. At the time was reject the possibility that this diffraction wave of some particle can be wave pilot, because of the instability of some wave package represented by this particle. So according to my theory, it is the mistake, which made up then the physicist. Because according to USM, that wave is exactly the wave pilot. That is so because through the wave movement of particle it creates its own field (see USM). That gives right to existence of the quantum mechanics and its correctness, according to USM, but with one stipulation, namely: All delivering of the quantum mechanics are correctly, but we cannot expect these quantum equations to give us a decision about of the essence of the field, because all equalities are set up upon the rule of energy preservation only. So according to USM any particle can represent by wave function plus potential function of the field of this particle, because the particles create they own field through inter movement between them (see USM). Or we can represent any particle with so called belated function, which is harmonic function plus potential function (see USM). So the problem of quantum mechanics, that any particle can be simultaneously on several places decline, it’s impossible! Each particle has exact coordinate in each moment movingly upon one harmonic function trajectory!
The wave’s particles are not wave of absolute or empty space which we accept wrongly now but wave of thickening and expanding of the space around the particle itself because of the inertial character of the field; see again this:
About quantum mechanics connection through the USM http://www.kanevuniverse.com and is it flowing towards the general relativity? First of all congratulation to Brian about very interesting point about quantum mechanics and general relativity compatibility! First of all let me begin with this: Now let talk a little about the last episodes (there is talking about “Cosmos” series), where was explained the properties of the light and properties of the neutrino. There I have the following objection: Indeed the dark lines in the spectrum analysis of elements are result of jumping of the electrons on the electronic cloud from lower to the higher orbit and there was said that the reverse process it isn’t clear yet, which is correct in the point of view of quantum mechanics, but not according to USM http://www.kanevuniverse.com Again quantum mechanics give the answer about quantum action as a preservation of the phase in the diffraction wave in the different energy orbits of the atom’s electron (in concrete case hydrogen atom), which means that there the period of wave must to change whole number times to be possible the particle to be the same. This explanation despite it gives thorough quantity coincidence it isn’t essence of the quantum action. That is why the quantum mechanics can give only probability of electron jumping from higher to lower orbit. According to USM pages 85 to 98 (about atom’s energy stimulation) and pages 153 to 174 (about the nuclei’s energy stimulation) http://www.kanevuniverse.com the essence of the quantum action in the atoms and nuclei actually is the belated inertial reaction of the energy stimulation (see also part I and II) and the disputed dark lines in the spectrum of atoms in fact are the times which is necessary that the field reaches to the closest orbital system to communicate about the has come changing in the equilibrium of the stimulated atom. Now about well formulated by Brian problem: “the probability to find out the electron it isn’t pointed to one particular spot but several such spots, but we can measure experimentally that the electron actually is in some concrete spot, not in several spots simultaneously”…well that is the problem…isn’t it? What is the resolution and whether either the quantum mechanics is incorrect or the general relativity is incorrect? The answer is neither one nor another! Let return towards USM http://www.kanevuniverse.com part I pages: 8 and 9, where is given the essentially explanation of field creation and there is said that the inter movement between the objects can to be event almost segment (straight line). On the fig 4 and 5 page 11 (USM) is given the essence of electrical charge creation and you can see that the hypothetical electron (can to be the muon and other particles which use the resonance radius of electron, see further in theory), this electron there moves in some harmonic curvet line because of the inertial action and contraction with the nearest orbital systems. So we can make a conclusion: the harmonic oscillation of some particle (through which it creates its own centripetal field) can become almost straight line because there the space continuously expands or contract around this line. Here must to remind that according to USM in the universe doesn’t exist absolutely space, the spaces are only the distances between the objects and if these distances absent, there wouldn’t be orbital systems and therefore no fields no masses, simply nothing, which means there it isn’t something to be described which to shows existence of absolute space itself. Now using the conception that actually the electron’s curvet harmonic line not expand or contract the space on the balanced middle line, follows that we can find out the electron exactly there on some measurement spot, where we presumably quietly accepted that this spot is on our mind creation, called absolutely space! So if we refuse to accept the existence of absolutely space the problem disappear! G.Kanev
she may not be correct, but at least she has something that addresses the problem rather than circular 'I dont know' like most other interviewees. +1
OBSERVER IS NOT A PERSON!
I have a question for all the athletes why you want to avoid God under the name of science
What is the problem in believing in a creator and study the origin of the universe?
Why you believe that if you know the explanation of any phenomena then you conclude that there is no need for the creator. You are like someone who learns for years how an engine car is working and then he will say yes now there is no producer of the cars!!
God is the observer HE is from everlasting to everlasting Isaiah 43:13
Uhhh, Its hard to listen that guy, he should learn a bit before doing an interview with professional.
My theory is the EDWs (Epistemologically Different Worlds) published in 2002-2003. Also, see here a new interpretation of quantum mechanics: in 2006, 2008, 2010 quantum theory is a pseudo-theory! My webpage here http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/: there are FIVE books FREE (all English) and many articles. About my EDWs perspective, see SYNTHESE (2005, USA) and SPRINGER (2016, Germany): Illusions of Human Thinking: on concepts of Mind, Reality, and Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience and Physics) in this book: quantum theory is a pseudo-theory, the mind-brain (life-organism) problem is a pseudo-problem, cognitive neuroscience is a pseudo-science, the ontology of special and general theory of relativity, definition of ‘life’, mental representation, etc.
(2016) Gabriel Vacariu and Mihai Vacariu, Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and Time, and Other pseudo-notions in Cosmology, Datagroup-Int, S.R.L. (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/144-4300723-6421324?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gabriel+vacariu)
Gabriel Vacariu and Mihai Vacariu (2017) From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs, Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics, and Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Datagroup-Int S.R.L. (on Amazon)
I am Magellan2 who discovered the EDWs! (Magellan1 discovered two Americas). I have changed everything in Physics, Cognitive Science and Philosophy! (moral philosophy excluded)…
Gabriel Vacariu (July 2018 – 2014) The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between the ideas of some people (2011-2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in physics (quantum mechanics, cosmology), cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy at
https://www.academia.edu/37102732/_August_2018-2014_Gabriel_Vacariu_The_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_REVOLUTION.docx
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326552312_August_2018_to_2014_The_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_between_the_ideas_of_some_people_2011-2016_and_my_ideas_2002-2008_in_physics_quantum_mechanics_cosmology_cognitive_neuroscience_philosophy_of_mind_and?_sg=WtWfquHhkb8NNabm-Q-xgSAZTt75-bd0TH2hzxb-sj0nmClrSS9MqaosLOW-dF15gjNKTmGVrbDoUez0NqI2ZCgkIWuzFOyS9Di5nyYQ.-zbX4z1-VuV91dqOtxLaL4AA2ya4Wa70UbloCIiQvOsLF8B2_PGMkIvquOozQYthcBsjRmApt9POhM_-S18ZcQ
https://philpapers.org/rec/VACGVA-4
OMG, it is as if she aims at making materialism sound as silly as it really is, just to show that to everybody.
All these desperate attempts to get rid of actual observers is so bogeous.
Decoherence has nothing to do with measurement.
Houghton is great for her research on black holes, but she is so wrong on observers. Observers require consciousness.
god isn't a scientific theory, in science we need to actually be able to test the theory. So unless someone finds a way to test god by emperical means, rather then rational means, then its not in the realm of science, but in the realm of philosophy.
This is also why real physicists (like her) are hesitent to actually go that way, because its an unfalsifiable claim, might be the same as with multiverses and their empirical status.
Its a shame god doesn't just show himself, it would have all been so easy 😛 whats even worse is that all the theological arguments for his emperical absence are very lacking. Maybe religion needs a philosophical revolution , where someone could give an consistant argument as to why god would be absent from this world.
Even if we prove deism right, there is still a long way to prove theism right.
Theory is an unproven idea! A single particle that had no origin? What would cause a single particle to change its state if that’s all that existed? Big Bang is utter and complete nonsense. Being a physicist / cosmologist is a great gig, getting paid to pat each other on the back talking about models and theory again ideas with no proof or evidence.
Robert at 8:53 "God. Just admit it."
this is great analysis…really enjoy this scientist…fantastic inquiry as always…also Rodollpho Llinas and Tse sent me into mental landscapes…
Maybe we're asking the wrong questions. Maybe quantum mechanics is relativistic, too. Maybe every conscious human being, when they make an observation (measurement) – or you could think of it as focus – they focus on one iteration of all the possible iterations of the set of possibilities available for a particular situation. Maybe it is a limitation of humans – our physical nature or the nature of our consciousness – that we can ONLY experience (process) one of the possible situations at a time. Maybe there are other kinds of conscious beings who can experience multiple instances of all the available possibilities at one time. If what I am wondering about is true, we might not ask questions that are as deterministic as, for example, 'how could the universe have started without a conscious being observing it, if consciousness is required in order to collapse the wave function?'. First of all, we would be assuming a conscious observer wasn't present, an assumption for which there is no proof. Second, we, here and now, would be trying to figure out how the beginning of the particular version of the universe that we are experiencing right now happened. And maybe there are many possible ways the particular universe that we are observing right now might have begun. Maybe our limited consciousness's observational power can only process one of those ways at a time. And, especially if time (what I call a collection of states of the universe after each movement) really can go backward as easily as forward (the past can affect the future and vice versa) maybe our past is in superposition, as well, relative to this particular collapsed-superposition version of ourselves.
So decoherence means collapse of the wave function (superposition) into one state?
Mansplaining. He continually cuts her off. Very rude.
As a bloke one said to me in a pub "who the fuck are you looking at" there was no mathematical model or even god…..just two observers about to interact…