|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Quantum Mechanics
|
Virtual Reality: ‘collapse of the wave function’ -- consciousness as mediator, as though the sensory universe were a display to the user
|
return to "Quantum Mechanics" main-page
from the website http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.pdf
The Measurement Effect
"Collapse of the wave function" -- consciousness as mediator, as though the sensory universe were a display to the user
During the course of an observation of a quantum event, the wave-like nature of the quantum unit is not observed. The evidence for the existence of quantum waves is entirely inferential, derived from such phenomena as the interference pattern on Mr. Young’s projection screen.
After analyzing such a phenomenon, the conclusion is that the only thing that could cause such a pattern is a wave. ("It is as if two waves were interfering.") However, actual observation always reveals instead a particle.
For example, as instruments were improved, it turned out that the interference pattern observed by Young was created not by a constant sloshing against the projection screen, but by one little hit at a time, randomly appearing at the projection screen in such a way that over time the interference pattern built up.
"Particles" of light were being observed as they struck the projection screen; but the eventual pattern appeared to the eye, and from mathematical analysis, to result from a wave.
This presents conceptual difficulties that are almost insurmountable as we attempt to visualize a light bulb (or laser or electron gun) emitting a particle at the source location, which immediately dissolves into a wave as it travels through the double slits, and which then reconstitutes itself into a particle at the projection screen, usually at a place where the (presumed) overlapping wave fronts radiating from the two slits reinforce each other.
What is more, this is only the beginning of the conceptual difficulties with this phenomenon. Investigating the mechanics of this process turns out to be impossible, for the reason that whenever we try to observe or otherwise detect a wave we obtain, instead, a particle. The very act of observation appears to change the nature of the quantum unit, according to conventional analysis. Variations on the double slit experiment provide the starkest illustration.
If we assume that quantum units are particles, it follows that the particle must travel from the emission source, through one slot or the other, and proceed to the projection screen. Therefore, we should be able to detect the particle mid-journey, i.e., at one slot or the other. The rational possibilities are that the particle would be detected at one slot, the other slot, or both slots.
Experiment shows that the particle in fact is detected always at one slot or the other slot, never at both slots, seeming to confirm that we are indeed dealing with particles.
However, a most mysterious thing happens when we detect these particles at the slots: the interference pattern disappears and is replaced by a clumping, in line with the source and the slots.
Thus, if we thought that some type of wave was traveling through this space in the absence of observation, we find instead a true particle upon observation -- a particle which behaves just like a particle is supposed to behave, to the point even of traveling in straight lines like a billiard ball...
At the scientific level, the question is "how?" The conventional way of describing the discrepancy between analysis and observation is to say that the "wave function" is somehow "collapsed" during observation, yielding a "particle" with measurable properties.
The mechanism of this transformation is completely unknown and, because the scientifically indispensable act of observation itself changes the result, it appears to be intrinsically and literally unknowable.
At the philosophical level, the question is "why?" Why should our acquisition of knowledge affect something which, to our way of thinking, should exist in whatever form it exists whether or not it is observed?
Is there something special about consciousness that relates directly to the things of which we are conscious? If so, why should that be?
the computer analogy
As John Gribbin puts it, "nature seems to ‘make the calculation’ and then present us with an observed event." Both the "how" and the "why" of this process can be addressed through the metaphor of a computer which is programmed to project images to create an experience for the user, who is a conscious being.
The "how" is described structurally by a computer which runs a program. The program provides an algorithm for determining the position (in this example) of every part of the image, which is to say, every pixel that will be projected to the user. The mechanism for transforming the programming into the projection is the user interface. This can be analogized to the computer monitor, and the mouse or joystick or other device for viewing one part of the image or another.
When the user chooses to view one part of the image, those pixels must be calculated and displayed; all other parts of the image remain stored in the computer as programming. Thus, the pixels being viewed must follow the logic of the projection, which is that they should move like particles across the screen. The programming representing the parts of the image not being displayed need not follow this logic, and may remain as formulas.
Calculating and displaying any particular pixel is entirely a function of conveying information to the user, and it necessarily involves a "change" from the inchoate mathematical relationships represented by the formula to the specific pixels generated according to those relationships.
The user can never "see" the programming, but by analysis can deduce its mathematical operation by careful observation of the manner in which the pixels are displayed. The algorithm does not collapse into a pixel; rather, the algorithm tells the monitor where and how to produce the pixel for display to the user according to which part of the image the user is viewing.
The "why" is problematical in the cosmic sense, but is easily stated within the limits of our computer metaphor. The programming produces images for the user because the entire set up was designed to do just that: to present images to a user (viewer) as needed by the user.
|