Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

But Xris, isn't your notion of determinism strictly conceptual? I mean you would like to say it is empirical, but Hume was the one who showed that all one ever has is an association through sequence of events, which is not the same as causality. In short, correlation is not causation. Causation comes from a metaphysical argument to be established as a principle.

Now causality may be able to be falsified under certain metaphysical assumptions by empirical data in the context of an experiment but quantum mechanics experiments, like the delayed choice quantum eraser have done as such.

My determined universe has been constructed on accepted observations of an understandable nature. The quantum indeterminate universe has been constructed on observations of a concept. If you do not understand the nature of an electron how can you trust the observations? The concept of an electron could be false.

Xris, but you have not dealt with what Hume is saying. You have not shown why there is anything beyond correlation.

Xris, but you have not dealt with what Hume is saying. You have not shown why there is anything beyond correlation.

I reason Exogen, I reason that what I observe will not change simply because I turn away. If it was not so then it would be evident. We are not privy to every event but by logical consent we make calculated empirical deductions. Do you deny they are not to be observed and understood, these causal events? You have tied your objections to a concept rather than a cause that has overwhelming evidence to secure it.

I reason Exogen, I reason that what I observe will not change simply because I turn away. If it was not so then it would be evident. We are not privy to every event but by logical consent we make calculated empirical deductions. Do you deny they are not to be observed and understood, these causal events? You have tied your objections to a concept rather than a cause that has overwhelming evidence to secure it.

Those are two separate ideas you are talking about there.

I was not addressing realism, but was instead talking about causation.

I deny that empirical observations demonstrates causation because causation is a certain kind of connection between events. what about the idea that different events are linked and interconnected? That does not necessarily mean that causation exists, only that distinctions are in relation to other distinctions. These relationships could even be someone "systematic" without being causal. What makes something "causal?" This is something you have not demonstrated.

Hume noted that events can follow each other in a sequence, but that does not mean they are causally related. All you ever observe is a sequence of events you classify categorically. That does not show that there is a true causal relationship.

So where is this principle of causation coming from?

On the subject of realism, there is no empirical evidence you can provide that shows that realism is true. The tea kettle boiling in the other room when you walk away no more proves there is a tea kettle in fact then it does that the tea kettle and all its transitional states that would otherwise be observed if you were standing there the whole time, are in fact happening when you are not there, because all those transitional states could be potentials with recalibrate when you go back to the room, much in the same way a computer games creates the landscape as you go there.

Xris said,

Those who support the status quo get the funds no matter how vague the concept.

Institutionalized science often works that way, yes. It is unfortunate, but science is a social institution, as are all institutions, and therefore subject to political agendas and economics. Though bad ideas may get funding while good ideas flounder, historically bad ideas in science do not prevail in the long run.

So we have a model of an electron. Not particle, not a wave? We describe its function but not it's value. What exactly is this field? what does it consist of? Mathematics can draw a picture of it's attributes but not it's true nature. if we live by concepts alone then no argument can be driven by certainty. No, you can not say it can be controlled by observation or this quantum world is indeterminate.

Your concerns seem very valid to me, but they are the province of philosophy, not science. Science is a tool. It is a way of symbolically representing patterns of phenomenal behavior to reveal predictability. Don't get me wrong: I am no Positivist; I do not believe that science has any purview to decide value, nor do I believe science should proceed without consideration of social values. I acknowledge that science DOES sometimes proceed without regard to social values, but I do not believe that it is ethically right for it to do so.


Still, it is good news to me that (1) scientific arguments are NOT driven by certainty, at least not in the long run, and (2) science' models are NOT representations of reality's "true" nature, since Absolute Truth is a fiction. The truth of a scientific fact is relative to the contextually appropriate application of the scientific model which utilizes that fact. Certainty is always dogmatic. Nothing is certain in reality because certainty is an evaluation of knowledge, knowledge is concomitant with context, and contexts change as part of the myriad dynamics of consciousness interacting with reality.

So are you actually claiming light is particle? is that conclusive?

I claim that light is a particle in the context of quantum mechanics. I claim that light is a wave in the context of Maxwell's field equations for electromagnetism. I claim that light is a vibration in a quantum field in the context of quantum electrodynamics. What is conclusive is that context can never be ignored when interpreting reality.

What is wave? What is field? what is it filled with? What is a particle doing making waves? making fields?

They're models for describing the behavior of phenomena, engineered specifically to allow some degree of predictability. Waves are one type of model and particles are another. They are complementary models in that each reveals some behavior that the other doesn't reveal. Particles don't make waves: particles and waves are "made" by how the quanta are observed. Particles don't make fields: Fields are abstract, coordinate-based mathematical objects that allow mathematical operators to accommodate vast amounts of individual phenomena within relatively simple equations.

Sorry but these simple mathematical explanations will never fully explain the duality of the quantum universe. Scientists themselves are bogged down in one mystery that simple relies on other mysteries.

I agree with you. But unlike you, I think it's wonderful. This is just what I mean when I say that science isn't in the business of truth. The pursuit of knowledge always extends horizons into unknowns we didn't even know were unknown. Let us all hope that the solution of one mystery always brings ten new mysteries! The day it doesn't, science will become fascist. Don't look to science to reveal or prescribe ontological reality. The business of science is describing the behavior of phenomenal reality, and only then in symbolic formalisms for predictability.

You may think you have dismissed his questions...

No, what I have dismissed are the paradoxes generated by the misapplication of Newtonian/common sense paradigms in favor of more reasonable, more comprehensive, and more productive questions.

...but in reality all you have done is perform an age old ritual. A ritual of instantly condemning any who believe in anything other than the community.

My condemnation of Bill Gaede is incidental, brought about because you propped him up as a spokesman for things he misrepresents. He is free to espouse what he wishes. But if someone brings him into a philosophy of science forum, I may challenge his statements to maintain the integrity of the discussion. Your perception of my tactic as defending the scientific community at all costs is unfortunately typical of the either/or, black/white thinking I've encountered before from dogmatic individuals.

I have no investment in the scientific community per se. I think there are prominent scientists who are very damaging to the public's acceptance and understanding of science. I think there are many good scientists who are dogmatic and closed-minded about their work. I think scientists as a whole should be more directly involved in scientific education of the public. The mutual antagonism between science and society is a recipe for disaster, and I think it is mostly scientists' fault. And I lament that most science must be either funded by the State or by corporate enterprise, both of which politicize research.

Poster the debate was about a quantum experiment and the certainty of it. What it claims and how this experiment is used to try and convince us of something that is simply a concept. Bill Gaede may or may not have something of value, I really do not know. But his concept of rope in layman's terms had more understanding and logic than an electron that is or might be a particle or a wave of energy. This is a philosophical debate, I agree, so why introduce a quantum concept and turn it into an empirical argument. Why discount an electromagnetic rope as philosophical theory but support one tired concept that has 80 years to discover one particle without success?

Xris said,

...his concept of rope in layman's terms had more understanding and logic than an electron that is or might be a particle or a wave of energy.

Gaede's electromagnetic rope hypothesis qualifies as hidden-variable physics. Hidden-variable physics of any variety always appeals to understanding and logic because it imparts causation to subatomic behavior. But like most hidden-variable physics, it doesn't suggest any way to test for the existence of the hidden variables nor does it predict behavior beyond current theory. So it isn't scientific. If we start using these models for the practice of science, we corrupt the disciplinary component of science which gives science its authority to be taken seriously.


Is hidden-variable physics of value? Sure. I'm very fond of holographic models myself: they excite me, and there are actually 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence to support them. But they are speculative, not scientific. They fire my imagination, just like good philosophy or a good science-fiction story. Do they make me want to believe causation must be behind quantum phenomena? No. I don't want to believe something so fundamental until there is good scientific argument to do so. Same reason I don't want to believe in God: until the scientific evidence is there for it, the concept obfuscates understanding rather than enhancing it.

This is a philosophical debate, I agree, so why introduce a quantum concept and turn it into an empirical argument.

Because people want to know what the results of the delayed-choice double-slit experiment mean vis-a-vis the rest of their knowledge about reality. I do agree that if anyone declares that the results "prove" backward-in-time causation as an empirical fact of objective reality, then they are misrepresenting the experiment, and the capacity and role of science. I acknowledge that this kind of "oracularization" of science happens all the time because people are not educated to understand what science is. It is unfortunate.

Why discount an electromagnetic rope as philosophical theory but support one tired concept that has 80 years to discover one particle without success?

Because electromagnetic rope isn't science. It doesn't meet the criteria. The tired concept of quantum field theory has met the criteria of time-proven predictive capability and has produced working technology like lasers and TV, and has explained empirical phenomena that no other theory can, such as Bose-Einstein condensates and superconductivity. The search for a particle is always going to be a never-ending search because that search is ever-unfolding, yielding new knowledge as it proceeds.

Poster,I am not sure if you agree that we should consider the "rope" or not. How does it involve hidden variables? It may not be accurate in it's description but electrons expressed as energetic frequencies between competing atoms sounds more feasible than loose particles with schizophrenic tendencies.

This double split experiment that concludes on a concept is my main concern. It is fraught with dangerous intentions that change every other scientific concepts. It attempts to rewrite science.

I have never denied science its success but I can build a drill, a television without the need of quantum concept. I may be completely ignorant but when has the concept of an electron advanced mans technological engineering? We can measure a wave , read an oscillation, trust an observation but never conclude on the stuff of matter by blindly agreeing to a concept.

Poster,I am not sure if you agree that we should consider the "rope" or not. How does it involve hidden variables? It may not be accurate in it's description but electrons expressed as energetic frequencies between competing atoms sounds more feasible than loose particles with schizophrenic tendencies.

Loose particles with schizophrenic tendencies are deemed so by somebody expecting causality behind these particles' behavior. If someone (say, Bill Gaede) wants to posit causality, fine, let him do so in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. I only found the one video for his E-M ropes and it (1) didn't describe any empirical evidence for these ropes nor (2) suggest any means to experimentally confirm their existence, while at the same time (3) suggesting these ropes establish causal relationships between particles. By those 3 criteria, we can say E-M ropes constitute a hidden-variables hypothesis.

A hidden variable is any "missing" term (variable) in some hypothetical mathematical formulae that would need to be explicit in the formulae to account for the effects one is ascribing to whatever property the missing term represents. In this case, that property is the effect of the ropes (and perhaps the ropes' internal dynamics) upon the particles. You can "reveal" the variables if you like (David Bohm was very successful at this for his "pilot wave" hypothesis) but all that does is give you equations with arbitrary terms corresponding to nothing you can test for or predict. In other words, mathematical games.

This double split experiment that concludes on a concept is my main concern. It is fraught with dangerous intentions that change every other scientific concepts. It attempts to rewrite science.

Let us all hope that science always gets rewritten. The day it doesn't, in favor of keeping outdated models institutionally predominant for non-scientific purposes, we will all be in trouble.

I have never denied science its success but I can build a drill, a television without the need of quantum concept. I may be completely ignorant but when has the concept of an electron advanced mans technological engineering?

Many times. Without quantum concepts, humans would have never bought into crazy ideas like superconductivity, tunneling optics, or plasmonics. Superconductivity allowed CERN's Large Hadron Collider to be built. Without superconductivity, predicted by quantum theory, the LHC's operating principles would be impossible to engineer into physical reality.

The quantum tunnelling microscope works on principles that are actually impossible according to common sense and Newtonian physics. Humans would have never tried to build a tunneling microscope that flies in the face of common sense, unless the equations of quantum mechanics had suggested that it should work.

The emerging field of plasmonics may someday be the basis for many new technologies. It is based entirely on the behavior of plasma--highly volatile, electrically charged gas that is nothing but dangerous...unless you model it as atomic nuclei stripped of their electrons, as plasma theory does yielding equations for predictable behavior one could utilize if you respect the equations.

We can measure a wave, read an oscillation, trust an observation but never conclude on the stuff of matter by blindly agreeing to a concept.

But our agreement isn't blind. It's supported by a tested model. And our conclusions don't have to reach down to the ontological nature of matter; only to a comprehensive understanding (bound by contextual representation & utility) of its empirical behavior.

Poster, Gaede has arrogantly stated a theory that needs more than simple dismissal. I usually find that weird ideas can easily be dismissed by the scientific community. Even if science may find his ideas outrageous and not worthy of attention there is usually one budding scientist prepared to dismember an idea. I have searched but not one rebuttal only sarcastic comments about the man not his theory. He is not talking about hidden variables, he talking about the construction of matter. The quantum particle theory requires particles. The quantum theory requires hidden variables to explain the indeterminate appearance of the quantum universe. Considering how much effort, time and expense has been spent constructing an image of this quantum universe without actually finding either why should you after watching one video, dismiss this as quackery?

You appear to want me to dismiss science completely and not appreciate what has been achieved but the concept of the quantum world has not added to it only the examination of it. I persist that this "delayed choice" experiment can only submit that our concept of the quantum world is wrong.

Considering how much effort, time and expense has been spent constructing an image of this quantum universe without actually finding either [particles or hidden variables,] why should you after watching one video, dismiss this as quackery?

I never called it quackery, I called it hidden-variable physics, and I explained why it is hidden-variable physics. I do think Gaede is a polemicist and I've learned the hard way not to trust polemics as a valid presentation of knowledge. I'm not in a position to know if Gaede is a quack; I don't know his credentials. I do know that hidden variable physics doesn't qualify as science to me.

You appear to want me to dismiss science completely and not appreciate what has been achieved...

You'll have to explain your reasoning here. I have never had any such intention.

...but the concept of the quantum world has not added to it only the examination of it.

With over 90% of physicists subscribing to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the examination of the quantum world is all that most scientists seek to achieve. I believe the Copenhagen Interpretation is the right way for science to go about its business in the quantum world. Leave the philosophical speculation about consciousness and ontology to philosophers of science. It probably isn't an ideal set-up because it can lead to Positivism if scientists dismiss their own conscience in how they go about their work. But to assume causality and determinism in the quantum world without experimental evidence is to reintroduce metaphysics into science. No thanks. Instead, let's see if someone can devise testable hypotheses for quantum causality, then let's test them. That's how science should work.

I persist that this "delayed choice" experiment can only submit that our concept of the quantum world is wrong.

That's fine, Xris. I simply hope you acknowledge that your viewpoint is a philosophical choice, not a scientific proposition.


[EDIT}
By the way, Xris, if you really want to believe in causality for quantum phenomena, you shouldn't be backing Gaede's horse. You can do far better by reading the works of responsible researchers and highly respected scientists like David Bohm, Gerard d' Hooft, Leonard Susskind, and John Cramer. All these scientists have elaborated on their own hidden-variable approaches to reality. Susskind and d' Hooft approach it from cosmology rather than quantum theory but they achieve similar causal hypotheses as the others.

Hi Poster..
I appreciate we should not trust all untested theories but we must consider them or some great truth could be lost.
I still can not see how you invoke hidden variables into his proposal. His theory does not require hidden variable. His theory is not a variation of the respected concept, where hidden variables are required to solve the indeterminate nature of experiments.

You have told me not to discount the quantum particle theory because it has produced tangible results. I do not discount them but I do the concept that gave them the results. Transpose Gaedes concept and you would still produce practical developments.

I am not expecting determinism, I believe it is essential. It could be called philosophical but I believe nature to be determined, so why should things change when we reduce the scale of things. I have no intentions flying Gaedes pennant but I will defend his right to question the epistemology that science uses to create concepts.

As you suspect I am only an interested observer and I do do my best to understand the problems and the results quantum theorists have produced. Every debate causes me to study and this debate is no exception. Thanks xris

I still can not see how you invoke hidden variables into his proposal. His theory does not require hidden variable. His theory is not a variation of the respected concept, where hidden variables are required to solve the indeterminate nature of experiments.

Don't get too hung up on the name "hidden variables." I'm pretty sure that label came into fashion after David Bohm published his Pilot Wave hypothesis, utilizing the equations of quantum mechanics modified to include terms that signified a new field effect that acted alot like classical fields for what are known as "potentials" except that Bohms' new field did not diminish with distance, unlike any known "real" field. The terms "worked" mathematically, but the new field effect they symbolized was a fabrication of Bohm's making with no empirical evidence for its existence and no way to test for it empirically. It was considered "hidden."


In practice, hidden variable schemes don't always get as far as yielding actual mathematical formulae, but when they do, they require mathematical representation for the posited causal agents behind quantum dynamics. Gaede's ropes are no exception. If he were to elaborate the mathematics of how his ropes operate, we would see terms representing the rope's causal agency upon the electrons. Since there is no empirical evidence for such ropes, nor any suggestion of how to empirically demonstrate the existence of these ropes, the mathematical terms for these ropes would constitute hidden variables because they correspond to nothing empirically demonstrable.

You have told me not to discount the quantum particle theory because it has produced tangible results. I do not discount them but I do the concept that gave them the results. Transpose Gaedes concept and you would still produce practical developments.

Yes, Gaede's concept would potentially produce practical developments, but sooner or later he'd have to publish his mathematics, and with hidden variables in place, his model's predictive capacity would eventually become seriously curtailed. An analogy can be seen in Ptolemy's epicycles. Ptolemy modeled the cosmos just fine for some 1500 years or so, safely allowing navigators to find their ports, predicting solar eclipses, etc. But as science catalogued more and more empirical data about the cosmos, Ptolemy's math needed more and more modification, becoming very burdensome, while more and more data accrued that his model just could not accommodate. Granted, his problem wasn't hidden variables, but an equivalent problem: the increasing burden of supporting a geocentric cosmos mathematically. Copernicus heliocentric model (with Kepler's subsequent modifications) proved a much easier-to-use model, much more comprehensive in prediction, and accommodated more of the available data.


Does Copernicus tell us more about the causative agents moving the universe than Ptolemy did? Not really. Does it expose the ontological nature of reality more than Ptolemy? No. Is Copernicus model a "true" representation of reality where Ptolemy's model was false? Well, Special Relativity makes both models "false", so what does that say? Does Ptolemy's Epicycles still work? Yes, of course it does. I could use it myself tomorrow to sail to Fiji if I knew how to steer a boat. All that's changed is that we now know the limits of that model, beyond which we know it may not work at all. The ancients didn't know those limits.

Science has no compelling reason to utilize Gaede's rope model. Even with its explicit mathematics elaborated, its dependence on hidden variables curtails its predictive capacity while shedding no insights beyond current theory, choosing instead to simply foist an epistemological presumption into empirical experimentation. Science' job is to describe reality, not prescribe it.

I am not expecting determinism, I believe it is essential. It could be called philosophical but I believe nature to be determined, so why should things change when we reduce the scale of things. I have no intentions flying Gaedes pennant but I will defend his right to question the epistemology that science uses to create concepts.

I do agree at least that scientific concepts easily become "idolized" to use Owen Barfield's term, being mistaken for objective facts, but that is reflective of society's poorly conceived and managed educational systems, and perhaps scientists' own lack of objectivity about the role and place of their work. It is not a limitation, shortfall, or error of science per se. The epistemology per se of science is quite possibly humanity's greatest intellectual achievement. Someday, we may be able to claim it as an equally significant social achievement as well, but I do not claim that today.

I may be wrong but Gaede is discounting the concept of an electron ever appearing as a particle. I believe we see discrepancies and the indeterminate nature of quantum particle science, simply because we assume minute particles. There must come a point where energy persists and our imagination fails us. His idea may just be trying to convey that perspective.

I believe our advances have come about because we rightly assume that to a certain depth they are particles. Every panorama holds many aspects of life, as we get closer it becomes easier to see the detail but too close and we can only imagine. What are we searching for in simple knowledge? I hear scientists saying it is the particle that will explain the start of the universe, the god particle. What concept creates this desire to find this god particle? From an observable philosophical perspective science has increasingly become dependent on desires. 80 years remember, in two continents, all this desire and have we the final particle?

Xris,

finding the Hibbs Boson (God particle) is not about desire. Scientists individually may have a desire for their mathematical models to accurately describe empirical phenomenon, but that is separate from the practice of science, which includes peer review and rigorous empirical testing of the predictions that the models. Science is a process of trying to get better and better predictions of observable phenomena via the community of science and the scientific method.

You seem to be confusing the motivation of scientists with the practice of science. It doesn't matter what desires scientists have. Many scientists may have dreams, and theory building is as much a creative process as a logical one, but don't confuse creativity with the application of scientific methodology. A scientist may have desires for God particles all they want but they need to back it up with evidence. That's why they are examining the results at CERN.