[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:	Psychic Phenomena
Notice:	Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:	JARETH::PAINTER

Created:	Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:	Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	2143
Total number of notes:	41773

344.0. "Physics and Psi" by PROSE::WAJENBERG () Thu Apr 09 1987 15:02

This is in response to a request for descriptions of the interpretations of 
quantum mechanics.

First, a little background on the issues.  QM describes bodies in terms of 
"wave functions."  These are equations which tell you the probability of 
finding the given body in a given state.  (Examples of states are locations, 
states of motion, levels of energy, orientations.)  QM can only give 
probabilities, not certainties.  The central problem of interpretation is, 
What does this uncertainty mean?  Is the world uncertain, or are we?  

We are note used to the idea of the world being uncertain.  When we find 
someting, it is in one place, not vaguely here and somewhat there.  But with 
very small bodies, like atoms and electrons, things get weird.  We don't get 
the same value each time we measure.  Repeated measurements give different
values, scattered around according to the probability distributions that QM
predicts, but any one measurement is an exact value. 

The leading description is the Copenhagen Interpretation by Niels Bohr (and 
presented by him at a big physics convention in Copenhagen).  Briefly put, it
says that the world exists in an uncertain state until something measures it,
whereupon it is forced to "make up its mind" and adopt a single, definite
value -- sort of like shoving an indecisive voter into the voting booth and
ordering him to vote NOW. 

So the world loses its uncertainty for the moment it is measured.  But what is
a measurement?  QM doesn't tell us.  The "moderate" Copenhagen party maintains
that any macroscopic, everyday event can be an observation: the darkening of a
spot on a photographic film, for instance.  The "observer" can just be an
inanimate object. 

The "strict" Copenhagen party says that an observation isn't an observation
until someone is aware of it.  After all, I can write down the equation for an
uncertain photographic plate just as well as for an uncertain atom.  So, in
their view, the world stays uncertain on an arbitrarily large scale until a
conscious mind looks.  Only then does it have to make up its mind. 

The Many-Worlds interpretation says that the world is uncertain but it never 
DOES make up its mind.  "Which kind of ice cream would you like?" "All of 
them!"  This theory has mathematical problems that would be a little 
complicated to go into.  It isn't popular, partly because of its mathematical 
problems, partly because it seems so extravagant to imagine those infinities 
of alternate universes.

The Hidden Variables interpretation is the one Einstein favored.  It says that 
the world is not uncertain, we are.  The world knows what it's doing all the 
time; we don't force it to make up its mind, we just discover what it's doing.
This sounds very common-sensical. 

The catch is that it means there is a lot more to the mechanism of the world
that QM does not describe.  I don't have any trouble with this, but there is a
second catch.  It turns out that this yet-to-be-discovered mechanism must do
things like operate backward and forward through time or across space faster
than light if it is to produce the proper experimental results.  This
side-effect of the Hidden Variable interpretation was unknown in Einstein's
day, but it would have made him very uncomfortable, I'd imagine. 

The two interpretations of QM that interest the psychical researcher are the 
strict Copenhagen and the Hidden Variables.  The strict Copenhagen, advocated 
by Eugene Wigner among others, gives Mind a special place in the scheme of 
things and strongly suggests that it is not the same as matter.  It does NOT 
mean that you can make things come out the way you want; you make the world 
decide, but you can't dictate which way the decision comes out.

The Hidden Variables is interesting because of the way it works without regard 
to time and distance.  ESP seems to work with the same freedom, so maybe ESP 
is a trickle of information we somehow extract from the hidden variables.  But 
this interesting speculation remains nothing more than a speculation until the 
hidden variables stop hiding.

Earl Wajenberg

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
344.1	OPERATIONS OF INCREASING ORDER	TWEED::REINKE		`Thu Apr 09 1987 18:14`	33
	You would be interested, I think, in a book I have -- Operations of Increasing Order. I can't remember the author, but I'll sketch the general idea. The author starts from the premise that a scientist ought not to assume that psychic phenomena don't exist, just because their existence is so )(#$& hard to prove scientifically. He then attempts to use among other things quantum mechanics to advance a theory of "reality" that might explain why such crazy things as levitation, claire voyance, genius and so on are possible. One of the ideas he advances is a holographic analogy for the brain. (Actually, I think he gives yet another source for this idea.) If I recall correctly, he says something like, "What if the brain acts like a hologram and the light of divinity is like a laser? Apparent reality, then, is like a holographic image." At any rate, the relation to QM is (approximately) this: If through meditation, one gets stiller and more nearly "ordered", then the laws of quantum mechanics (wherein an electron shifts in a step function, not linearly) begin to supercede the apparent laws of the universe, which are really based on averages. All of which brings me to a FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Is "Reality" digital in nature? Does the mathematical concept of "dense" have no place in the natural world? Someday, I hope to be able to answer both questions in the affirmative. Donald Reinke
344.2	I think reality is here and now	LEDS::KARWAN	Rav Karwan/Shrewsbury	`Fri Apr 10 1987 12:18`	15
	Re: .1 > All of which brings me to a FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Is "Reality" > digital in nature? It may me digital (or is the word "discrete") only at the extreme fine grained level. We can't experience it directly, nor can "small" creatures like bacteria, etc. Personally, I think many of the ideas in the QM area, like, multiple universes, etc. belong more in the realm of philosophy than in solid science. Pity, lot of fine brains make a living publishing papers on just such subjects leaving good observable science for others. -- Rav Karwan
344.3		PROSE::WAJENBERG		`Fri Apr 10 1987 12:48`	7
	There hasn't been much ink spilled over the Many Worlds interpretation. As I said, it's unpopular. I think the general idea of working on interpreting quantum mechanics is a very sound one, since this kind of theoretical testing is just as important to the advancement of science as the more directly experimental testing. Earl Wajenberg
344.4		MANTIS::PARE		`Fri Apr 10 1987 14:49`	5
	More important in many ways. If there is really any such thing as a single unified force, it is QM that will find it. Once it is found it will bring together religions, philosophies, social systems, political systems and show the future path of mankind. It will be the "absolute truth".
344.5	Waitaminute.	PROSE::WAJENBERG		`Fri Apr 10 1987 15:26`	15
	Re .4 Science cannot give absolute truth. There is always the possibility that some new piece of evidence will turn up that forces us to chuck out current theories. Also, I don't see how the discovery of a unified force would have any immediate religious, social, or political implications. The theoretical framework built around such a force might, just barely might, say something about the argument for the existence of God based on cosmic design. The discovery of this force might have very important technical applications that would thus pose new social and political problems. But then again, it might not. Earl Wajenberg
344.6	random observations: does that make them real? :-)	INK::KALLIS	Hallowe'en should be legal holiday	`Fri Apr 10 1987 16:08`	25
	Re .5: Earl, I agree. I see where the idea of finding a "unified force" might give someont that idea, though: if it's _unified_, it presumably will "tie things together." Mild semi-autobiographical note: Back when they were shooing the wooly mammoths out of the caves (that is, when I was going through junior high), we were _taught_ there were three "fundamental building- blocks of matter": electrons, protons, and neutrons (oh, yeah .. in college there were those talking about positrons, but these could be viewed as sort of symmetrical electrons). We in effect "knew all there was to know." What a laugh! "Science" is a nice tool, but its derivations aren't Absolute Truth, though there are those who would like to treat them like Holy Writ. Having said that, scientific findings have provided us with a good model for practical operations within the context of living in the universe. "Science bashing" is a futile exercise, as much as "science worship" is. Steve Kallis, Jr.
344.7		COLORS::HARDY		`Fri Apr 10 1987 16:42`	8
	Re .4 Considering that the world is _still_ flat for a lot of people, I wouldn't expect the arrival of the millenium. But to unify the forces is most certainly the goal. Pat
344.8	:^)	SSDEVO::YOUNGER	I haven't lost my mind - it's Backed-up on tape somewhere	`Fri Apr 10 1987 17:23`	6
	RE: .7 But the world is flat!!! It's just a disk-shaped flat platter. Elizabeth
344.9		INK::KALLIS	Hallowe'en should be legal holiday	`Fri Apr 10 1987 17:26`	6
	Re .8: Topologically, you're correct. ;-) Steve Kallis, Jr.