Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior  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... >.< |
In that case the which way can never be erased after it is viewed by a person. Photons showing it was collapsed will always be available to some distant observer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior 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... >.> |
I don't know. All I see is the same requirement - information must be available to a human. Computers can hold the information and pass it around in a code form, even though they have seen the original data, and it won't change anything. If a person does that, even if you are not aware of it, once you view the screen it will show a collapse. They could collapse it without your permission and refuse to share the information with you. It will still collapse.
I'm not really sure I followed the reasoning on these first 2 things to make a decisive comment though. I tried, I'm just having some mental roadblocks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior 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? |
Well a non-physical wave should have 0 or less entropy than it's particle, once collapsed it has increased it's disorder. We are not at equilibrium so can we uncollapse a system forward in time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior 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). |
I'm sure it collapses once a human has seen it or can see it.
If that wasn't true than anyone in the room who couldn't read detector jargon would get an interference pattern. Or we could teach a student the process but he would get an interference pattern even with the info right there if he didn't understand it.
This experiment has been repeated with variations literally 1000's of times.
Students and pros have been trying to defeat this for a long time. All of the crazy results are not published because they all say the same thing in the end. Which is not really news - "Strange observer created quantum effects proven true, yet again...(boring)"
The quantum eraser was the only one weird enough to warrant mention. Most scientist were not surprised though, it's already predicted in the math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior 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  ). |
Yeah the detector gets a photon blip because the probability is highest in that one spot. The probability gives spacetime enough juice to fire out a photon and that's what gets detected. The wave itself is imaginary (uses i). It a complex wave not a physical wave.
If the detector spits out information and that causes a collapse - even if no scientist has gone near the information - there is a big problem there.
That is what happens. So the idea of a "physical model" of the Universe and consciousness is utterly impossible. Even if one tries to avoid some sort of mind/matter connection this strange process completely undermines what the word "physical" is all about. The causality in this experiment is not allowed for in what we call the physical. OR we keep what we know about the physical to be real but add a 2nd component that says consciousness somehow has it's own set of rules in regards to it's existence in reality. The act of "knowing" can effect matter by some process beyond our physics.
It's like saying every time I think about a ham sandwich, a ham sandwich appears in my refrigerator. In the sense that:
1) It defies what we know of as "physical rules".
2)It seems to be related to consciousness.