Schrödinger's Cat: Research on the Radical Subjective Solution of the Measurement Problem. Dick...
-
Upload
dylan-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Schrödinger's Cat: Research on the Radical Subjective Solution of the Measurement Problem. Dick...
Schrödinger's Cat: Research on the Radical Subjective Solution of the Measurement Problem.
Dick Bierman & Stephen Whitmarsh,
University of Amsterdam
Presented at QuantumMind, Salzburg, July 15-21, 2007
Projection Postulate
Quantum Physics Potentialities
Classical Physics Reality
Projection Postulate
Quantum Physics Potentialities
Classical Physics Reality
Collapse of wave function by what is commonly called a
“measurement”.
Measurement problem
If the measurement is affecting the ‘measured’
it is extremely important to precisely define what
constitutes a measurement
Measurement problem
Definition 1:
A measurement is something that you do with a measurement device….
Usable in the daily practice of physics,
but incorrect: a problem!
(von Neumann)
Possible solutions
Many World solution (Everett)
Deterministic solution (Bohm)
Objective Reduction (Penrose)
Radical subjective solution (Wigner, Stapp)
Radical Solution
…. The reduction of the state vector is a physical event which occurs only when there is an interaction between the physical measuring apparatus and the psyche of some observer…..
Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy, and Shimony, A. (1977). Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication.
Foundations of Physics 7 (1977), 759-767.
Experimental Setup Hall, 1977
Experimental Setup Hall, 1977
Decay
Experimental Setup Hall, 1977
50% of cases
pre-observation
Experimental Setup Hall, 1977
1 µs delay
Experimental Setup Hall, 1977
(final)
observation
Assumptions1. Consciousness of first observer collapses the
state before second observation.
2. Final Observer (brain) is sensitive for the difference between collapsed and non-collapsed state
3. Final Observer can report this verbally (consciously)
Weaknesses in Hall, 1977
Assumption 1 is violated: Delay between first and second observation too short (e.g. Libet, 1979).
Assumption 3 is inconsistent: The dependent variable is a conscious verbal report, too late!
Libet et al. (1979): Subjective Referral of the Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience. Brain 102, 193-224.
Improvements in replication
Hall et al. 1977
Delay 1 µs
Dependent variable: verbal report
Amsterdam 2003
Delay 1000 ms
Dependent variable: brain signals
First Amsterdam setup
PRE-OBSERVER OBSERVER
First Amsterdam setup
GeigerCounter
50%
Delay1000ms
Deadtime 2000ms
OBSERVER
EEG measurement
PRE-OBSERVER
Radioactive source
Analysis procedure
Preobserved beeps
NOT preobserved beeps OBSERVER
EEG trace
EEG trace
Analysis procedure
Average EEG from onset-time of event (beep)
ERP
Results first Amsterdam Setup
df = 29Peak Difference
(microvolts)t p Non-parm p
N=30N20 1.002 2.12 0.043 19-11: 0.20P40 0.903 2.64 0.013 22-8: 0.016N100 0.350 0.66 0.52 15-15P200 -0.09 -0.18 0.86 15-15N300 -0.04 -0.08 0.93 15-15P350 -0.54 -1.17 0.25 12-18: 0.36
FC-leads
N400 0.098 0.25 0.80 16-14: 0.86P100 -0.16 -0.67 0.50 12-18: 0.36N160 -0.152 -0.84 0.41 13-17: 0.58P-leadsN200 -0.956 -3.93 0.0005 7-23: 0.005
Bierman, D.J. (2003). Does Consciousness Collapse the Wave-Packet?
Mind and Matter 1(1), pp. 45-57
Conclusions study 1
Radical Subjective Reduction supported A quantum-measurement is only complete when ‘acted’ upon by
consciousness.
Copenhagen interpretation supported The collapse of the wave packet occurs with measurement,
creating reality from potentiality.
But wait! Strong claims need strong evidence, so a second study was
performed
Alternative explanations
Sensory Cueing (ultra sounds) EM radiation Chance
Improvements in replication
Amsterdam 2003
Audio Speakers 16 EEG electrodes Quantum source of
measurement
Amsterdam 2004
Air-pressure headphones 32 EEG electrodes Quantum & Classical
source of measurement
Analysis procedure
So now we’ve got 4 different conditions:
No pre-observer Pre-observer
Quantum ERP ERP
Classic ERP ERP
Hypothesis
Effects of pre-observation in pre-conscious time-interval (0 - ±350 ms) – replication of 2003 experiment
No effects of pre-observation when source is Classic – the state-vector should already be collapsed
Second Amsterdam setup
GeigerCounter
50%
Delay1000ms
Timed Delay
Deadtime 2000ms
OBSERVER
EEG measurement
PRE-OBSERVER
Second Amsterdam setup
GeigerCounter
50%
Delay1000ms
Timed Delay
Deadtime 2000ms
OBSERVER
EEG measurement
PRE-OBSERVER
Results
Bierman, D. J., Whitmarsh, S. (2006), Consciousness and Quantum Physics: Empirical Research on the Subjective Reduction of the State Vector. (Book Chapter) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness, The Frontiers Collection. Tuszynski, J. A. (Ed.).
Results
Results
1. No effects of pre-observation when source is Classic
2. No effects found of pre-observation (thus no direct replication of 2003 study)
No pre-observer Pre-observer
Quantum ERP ERP
Classic ERP ERP
Discussion (no effects of pre-observation)
Uncertainty about the stimulus-origin was introduced by the addition of a classical source: Conscious observation of the stimuli did not yield a
definite measurement because it remained unknown what was actually measured (a quantum or a classic event)
So Subjective Collapse by the pre-observer was actually prevented!
Discussion (effect of quantum/singular source)
A different state of event stimuli was still
introduced (quantum/classical) Since the pre-observer could not collapse the
quantum state, the effect should still be seen on the final-observer’s EEG…
That’s what we found!
Exploration Quantum/Classic
Exploration Quantum/Classic
Results
1. No effects of pre-observation when source was Classic
2. No effects found of pre-observation (thus no direct replication of 2003 study)
3. Effect of event-origin (quantum/classic) in final-observer’s brain signals!
No pre-observer Pre-observer
Quantum ERP ERP
Classic ERP ERP
Alternative explanations
Sensory Cueing (ultra sounds) EM radiation Chance Differences in ISI / decay-time distribution
Shorter intervals with quantum vs. classical events post-hoc.
Conclusion
Although no direct replication of the 2003 findings,
The second Amsterdam setup is still consistent with the subjective reduction solution of the measurement problem
But wait… lets try to reconcile the two… (effect of pre-observer & classic source)
Reconciliation in third A’dam setup
PRE-OBSERVER
!CQ
PRE-OBSERVER
?Q C
Sensitivities Care was taken to maintain exactly the same time-distributions
of the quantum and classical events.
Preliminary Results
Analysis done over only a fraction of intended number of subjects (20 out of 64).
Conclusion
The support for the idea that ‘consciousness collapses the wave function’ has evaporated.
Initial results due to differences in decay-time distribution?
However, it could be that the assumptions underlying this approach are invalid Consciousness may be not just observing, but measuring
We will find out!
Thank you for your attention.
Shape of difference waves