Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
-
- Posts: 865
- Joined: September 20th, 2012, 10:22 pm
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
There is no evidence that many worlds is real anymore than epicycles were real to the Ptolemaic view. Actually, the Ptolemaic view was more valid in that it produced accurate predictions with the mathematics to back it up. There is no mathematical expression for many worlds; no defined many worlds mechanism. It is an assumption with no proof. Saying the experiments are proof that many worlds is true, is saying epicycles are real because they are observed.
The only thing that is obvious to me is that our science has reached a point where it cannot explain what it observes. The explanation will come with greater knowledge, not by belief in the unprovable.
As a side note: Has anyone ever considered that dark matter/dark energy might have something to do with all of this? After all, if what we know and observe is only 4% of what there is in the Universe, can we be all that sure our knowledge is representative of the whole?
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 6:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
Let's start by deriding one of the world's leading quantum philosophers by describing him as geeky shall we?. If you follow his logic (which shouldn't be too hard as I think the lecture was aimed at children) you will be forced to accept either Many Worlds or the Copenhagen interpretation (or subtle variants of the two). This dichotomy boils down to the question of whether the quantum state is ontological, or whether it is purely epistemic. There is no "empirical" way of distinguishing these two positions, though it may be possible in the future when reversible quantum computers are constructed.Logicus wrote:This thread started with a video in which a typically geeky sort of guy explains the results of another interferometer experiment, ending with a statement that the results would be "most easily explained" if we adopt a many worlds view "and I'll just leave it at that". Which is, of course, no explanation at all. How is it logical and obvious that we need a many worlds hypothesis to explain the result? Is it science if it relies on the imaginary?
So, we have a problem that lies at the heart of physics, epistemology, ontology, and probably other ologies as well. It is also a philosophical problem.
Quantum mechanics without ad-hoc additions is precisely what Many Worlds is. It is pure unitary evolution, without collapse or without the Heisenberg cut, or without complementarity, and without duality. Many Worlds is the unadulterated mathematics of QM. In the words of Hawking, Many Worlds id "trivially true".There is no evidence that many worlds is real anymore than epicycles were real to the Ptolemaic view. Actually, the Ptolemaic view was more valid in that it produced accurate predictions with the mathematics to back it up. There is no mathematical expression for many worlds; no defined many worlds mechanism. It is an assumption with no proof. Saying the experiments are proof that many worlds is true, is saying epicycles are real because they are observed.
Science by definition is unprovable: science is falsifiable.The only thing that is obvious to me is that our science has reached a point where it cannot explain what it observes. The explanation will come with greater knowledge, not by belief in the unprovable.
There are highly speculative ideas that dark matter may be a remnant of parallel universes. There is also the view, that from the perspective of the multiverse, things that may appear insignificant in our universe are in fact some of the largest and most significant structures. Life is one of those processes that, according to multiverse theory, is likely to account for some of the most significant structures in both time and space.As a side note: Has anyone ever considered that dark matter/dark energy might have something to do with all of this? After all, if what we know and observe is only 4% of what there is in the Universe, can we be all that sure our knowledge is representative of the whole?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
A normal question for physicists to ask on account of this experimentwould be:
1 are the alternate photons in the future or the present?
It was shown that depending on the way some light in the universe is observed, the light shows up at different locations. So then is the observer in an anticipative relationship to the photons which inhabit the future, or is the observer parallel in time with the alternative photons?
Also if the position parameter of a photon is in a state of alternatives, are the other parameters of the photon also in a state of alternatives?
Etc.
The many world hypothesis seems to be a fairly useless attempt to keep logic of cause and effect alive in a place where it does not apply. It is certainly an interesting idea, but the mainstream should follow a logic of alternatives, instead of a logic of many universes.
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 6:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
No, the experiment still works if detectors and beam splitters are controlled by stochastic processes after the photon enters the apparatus ensuring space-like separation.Syamsu wrote: A normal question for physicists to ask on account of this experimentwould be:
1 are the alternate photons in the future or the present?
It was shown that depending on the way some light in the universe is observed, the light shows up at different locations. So then is the observer in an anticipative relationship to the photons which inhabit the future, or is the observer parallel in time with the alternative photons?
The photon is in a state of superposition, but the question is, what does that mean. In Copenhagen interpretation "superposition" has no physical meaning because the quantum state is epistemic.Also if the position parameter of a photon is in a state of alternatives, are the other parameters of the photon also in a state of alternatives?
Well, physicist like causality, and they like locality. In fact they like these things so much that they gave up realism. Only Many Worlds retains locality and realism.Etc.
The many world hypothesis seems to be a fairly useless attempt to keep logic of cause and effect alive in a place where it does not apply. It is certainly an interesting idea, but the mainstream should follow a logic of alternatives, instead of a logic of many universes.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 6:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
It's quite simple really. You can buy single photon sources, and if you are particularly interested in how they work, you can look at the technical specifications. Most researchers however, on table-top experiments will use a filter to attenuate the source (invariably a laser) to the extent that there is a low probability of more than one photon being in the device at a time.Xris wrote:THE PHOTON. What a word, what a concept. When ignorance prevails anything is possible even imagined worlds beyond our understanding. We are informed it is created travelling at maximum speed, does not experience time, has no mass, can not be seen travelling, has frequency, has length it might even fall down rabbit holes. So how in hell can we be expected to believe one photon( is that a photon as a particle or a wave function) is sent through this strange instrument? Philosophy is dogged with quantum. It attempts to impose on the laymen a set of its own uncertainties as if they were valid enough to construct a totally new outlook on reality. I for one will constantly oppose it at any opportunity.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
I am aware of the technical reasoning. I just dont believe it. We have to believe that these photons leave as a particle but travel as a wave function. Something we are expected to accept without any real logical explaination. It's because so many experiments indicate we do not understand the reality of what is actually occurring, that we have to invent. One after another illogical consequences appear. I agree if you treat the photon as particle it will create quandaries. The observers does appear to influence the experiment. Yes we do need to invent multi worlds, it is the only logical conclusion from an illogical concept. If science is happy inventing an illogical universe and finds the need to look for multiple worlds please do not be surprised to find opposition however ill informed that opposition may be.Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
It's quite simple really. You can buy single photon sources, and if you are particularly interested in how they work, you can look at the technical specifications. Most researchers however, on table-top experiments will use a filter to attenuate the source (invariably a laser) to the extent that there is a low probability of more than one photon being in the device at a time.
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: April 25th, 2011, 7:11 am
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
Here is the thing that I think is important to note about science: It isn't about believing.Xris wrote: I am aware of the technical reasoning. I just dont believe it.
"Photon" is a name for an observed phenomenon. Observations aren't subject to belief. So all you could be saying is "I don't believe the people who say they have observed photons". A valid position, just not a very rational one in my opinion.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
And it is rational to claim that human observation alters reality, that there are thousands of invisible worlds? Photons as particles have never been observed.Cronos988 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Here is the thing that I think is important to note about science: It isn't about believing.
"Photon" is a name for an observed phenomenon. Observations aren't subject to belief. So all you could be saying is "I don't believe the people who say they have observed photons". A valid position, just not a very rational one in my opinion.
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: April 25th, 2011, 7:11 am
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
Yes. I would have to go look up the exact definition of a rational argument, but since both alternatives can be logically deduced from the existing premises, I am pretty sure they fit under a standard of rationality.Xris wrote: And it is rational to claim that human observation alters reality, that there are thousands of invisible worlds?
The video in the OP explains how the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer allows us to observe the particle-quality of a photon.Xris wrote:Photons as particles have never been observed.
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 6:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
Actually, I believe frogs eyes can detect single photons, and I was under the impression that cats eyes can too. Certainly photomultipliers can detect single photons. Unfortunately, human eyes can't detect single photons, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. We can however detect the electrical impulses in frog optic nerves from their detection of a single photon. Also, Einstein received his Nobel prize for proving light was made of particles.Cronos988 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Yes. I would have to go look up the exact definition of a rational argument, but since both alternatives can be logically deduced from the existing premises, I am pretty sure they fit under a standard of rationality.
Xris: "Photons as particles have never been observed."
The video in the OP explains how the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer allows us to observe the particle-quality of a photon.
That "human observer alters reality" is not even a claim. The human observer has been absent from quantum mechanics since ~1957.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: April 25th, 2011, 7:11 am
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
That claim is, however, a means of explaining the observation of particle characteristics in a photon. That explanation supposes that the observation is caused by an illusion, but that makes it no less of an observation. I don't know if you conflate observing with seeing, or just using "seen" as just another way to say "observe". If it's the first, you are misunderstanding "observations" as an epistemological category, if it's the latter your argument is factually incorrect.Xris wrote:As I understand it there is still the claim by quantum that the simple act of observing will influence reality. If it has been denied recently then I would love to see the evidence. Photons are not seen and never have been. Is this an admission they are little pesky creatures with what we could be defined as a particle. Have they mass, shape or any other attributes giving them substance? Any experiment can assume anything, proving photons exist as particles is not proven.
A quick look into wikipedia will give you all properties of photons that have so far been observed.
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm
Re: Mach-Zehnder Interferometer
The multi universe theory is superficially rational, but deeper down it has problems, like it would not be possible to know there are other universes since no information can pass between them.Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
And it is rational to claim that human observation alters reality, that there are thousands of invisible worlds? Photons as particles have never been observed.
Mostly quantum mechanics follows a logic of freedom, except the alternatives don't seem to be in the future. The observer in qm is then = the decider, the superposition collapse = decision, the entangled photon states = alternatives. It has also been proven that the logic that "things could have turned out differently" applies to the photon state not chosen.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023