[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

If your familiar with light cone speak then the telescope scientist (S_t) is located out of scientist #1 (S_1) light cone in a space like separation 10 light minutes to the left. So he will enter S_1's PAST light cone in 10 minutes. When that light hits S_t he will see the wave collapsed. At that same instant S_2 enters the lab and sees the uncollapsed wave. S_t has re-collapsed the wave but the light will not arrive to reflect this for another ~10 min. S_2 cannot have knowledge about S_t for 10 min. So we end up with 2 different descriptions of 1 event.

Unless the wave remains collapsed the entire time, then there is no paradox.

I think it's also a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I see, I see. However, I think there's something overlooked here as well. This information that S_2 sees after entering the lab (the uncollapsed wave), isn't on the screen as an interference pattern. because if it is on the screen, then the information that was sent to S_t was of the past and doesn't affect this new set of interfering photons. However, I'm assuming that it is due to the data readouts from the experiment S_1 that S_2 reads when arriving. however when arrived, the which-path information was essentially erased along with S_1. In the case that the data is strictly that from S_1 of the final pattern and the which path data was erased, then I would agree with you that S_2 would see the clumping pattern in the data, because it was that which was recorded and in a sense relaying the which-path data along with it, and so in effect, the knowledge of the which-path data was not completely erased in this scenario which would solve the paradox I'm guessing (i.e. that situation that would have caused the paradox never actually happened so it would be a situation that could not occur). in other words, I'm still sticking with the idea that if the information is not available (i suppose I should also add 'in whatever form it's in' as well), then the observation is interference. Sorry about not catching that earlier, I had thought something strange was going on in this problem... Hopefully it's a valid error and not just something I made up to press my point... sigh... >.<

I'll add this bit here too because the ideas and results from this experiment are also somewhat relevant. Looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, there are similarities to the data being incomprehensible unless the which path data is also known. i.e. if the data for which-path was erased post-detection, an interference pattern is seen in the data, albeit here for both ways, detect and non-detect prior to this information is also the same, which seems like some form of interference in of itself... >.>

the transactional interpretation, from what little I read of it also supports the idea that the wavefunction was collapsed the entire time, because some standing wave is created between the sender and receiver through time or something like that, but for some reason, i have my reservations of it, same with the afshar experiment, but that's probably just me feeling uneasy about it. future affecting the present and all...

Also, how would it be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

I know I am very familiar with entangled particles. I'm not saying anything about communication, just that the particles communicate information faster than light. There are different ideas about how this happens but there is no explanation as to what's really going on.

Heh, what exactly do you do anyway?

But if a person in the room with you collapses the wave but won't tell you the information the wave is still collapsed. If a computer has the information but won't give it to you then the interference pattern stays.

If a thought is inaccurate that will not effect any outcome. If the computer spits out random information but the scientist is drunk and thinks it's correct information the wave will not collapse.

If the person was able to see the collapse then by all means the data should be there for you to see it as well, after all two people aren't so different, so whatever gave that first person the information could potentially also give you the information. the difference with a computer is that if it won't give you the information, it won't give anyone else the information either. I'm suddenly reminded of the Chinese Room for some reason. Essentially, I think that if the computer was replaced by the computer and a person reading the output, if the latter didn't give you any information and you couldn't get any information you wouldn't otherwise get if you strictly had the computer, things would not change (this includes the person just telling you if there was interference or not for the same reasons I stated with the scientist's scenario above about percolating information).

No that's right! I have been saying that having or not having information does affect the physical world, with all this stuff on consciousness and whatnot.

I'm saying it in the sense of "wow". If I were a mechanistic Newtonian positivist expecting conscious function to have the same results as any other thing I would be shocked that there are all these violations of known physics.
Even without the observer problem we still have the issue of photons "knowing" if someone is measuring or not. There are no secret particles communicating to the photons (or any other small object). At least not within our current understanding. I hear people say the connection to consciousness is an illusion but the evidence to me is clear enough to say physics leans in the direction of the observer having a deeper connection then the Newtonian model predicts.

Luckily, we're not working off of the Newtonian model anymore.

I call it creation because the wave does not exist, it is a mathematical description. From "potentiality" an observer brings it into space time.
Assigning a bit of consciousness to interactions and envirnoment seems to abstract for me. If that were so than a detector detecting a photon should collapse it.

I say that it 'does' in the sense that the detector has the information of the collapse. However, that information will not do anyone else any good because it can't get to anyone else. Furthermore, I think the detector could only interact using this information if it were able to pass this information on to what it wanted to interact with (so that they were on the same page, so to speak ).

Sounds reasonable on the time and continuity idea.

I think waves are just ideas that apply to quanta or a small piece of a field that permeates all space and time. A photon particle (a quanta of the electromagnetic field) is a slight disturbance in that field.
That is quantum field theory.

I briefly looked at the wiki article on QFT, but quite frankly, I don't know too much about it, although I've certainly heard the name being dropped enough times by one of my professors. I am glad the LHC is back online now though.