Thread: Quantum test grounds

Although I've been deeply interested in and have done extensive (as extensive as possible that is without graduate studies) reading about both quantum theory and lucid dreaming, I currently see no real connection between the two. Do you know of any actual evidence, or are you merely using quantum principles as metaphors for dreaming?

Look up Quantum Consciousness. It is a VERY solid connection between the two, and so much more.

Hi Jahn,

I too find myself deviating from lucid dreaming and reading more and more of quantum physics, wave/particle duality, entanglement and the like.

I agree with PJ to some extent in that there is a link (though maybe not direct) between quantum theory and lucid dreaming. Both are 'things' or elements which swim around in this field of cosmic soup. They are not so much dependent on each other, but they do share a common place (or at least touch common points).

As for Bell's theorem, I've found that still a hard concept to grasp - but if you search for twin photon experiments you'll also find that it's been found that altering a photon in anyway will instantaneously effect it's twin, no matter how far apart. Is this the same principle? From what I understand, Bell's theorem had something to do with "hidden local variables".

The question is, what is it that you propose as far as an experiment for the Research Team? Or are you simply interested in an extended discussion?

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

The question is, what is it that you propose as far as an experiment for the Research Team? Or are you simply interested in an extended discussion?

"I propose we have an open and candid discussion".

I would say it's very important to get the physics right. Otherwise you end up with something like The Secret .

On that basis, I'd like to point out that the current consensus is that jahnauasca is completely wrong about non-locality - quantum entanglement does not permit information to be transmitted faster than light.

This is important enough that you can find several popular explanations on the internet, but I can summarise from memory.

In Bell's experiment, you place two particles in an entangled superposition. E.g. you ensure that the particles (A and B) have opposite "spin", but you don't know which is which. In fact, the particles are in both possible states at the same time, and you don't know until you look. You can separate them without looking. When you do look at one particle, the "waveform collapses" for both particles. If you found that A was "spin up" (that's the term, don't blame me), then B collapses to "spin down" at exactly the same time. But since you can't choose the state A collapses to when you measure it, you can't use it to send a message.

If someone tells you otherwise, perhaps they're trying to increase sales of their "controversial" movie .

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

In Bell's experiment...

OK, I just Googled for backup and I was bitch-slapped by Greg Egan. What I described is completely uninteresting because you can do it without quantum mechanics anyway.

I'm afraid the best I can come up with at the moment about FTL comms using entanglement is Wikipedia says otherwise. It's challenging finding a source which I could present as authoritative, that doesn't rely on equations.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I would say it's very important to get the physics right. Otherwise you end up with something like The Secret .

On that basis, I'd like to point out that the current consensus is that jahnauasca is completely wrong about non-locality - quantum entanglement does not permit information to be transmitted faster than light.

This is important enough that you can find several popular explanations on the internet, but I can summarise from memory.

In Bell's experiment, you place two particles in an entangled superposition. E.g. you ensure that the particles (A and B) have opposite "spin", but you don't know which is which. In fact, the particles are in both possible states at the same time, and you don't know until you look. You can separate them without looking. When you do look at one particle, the "waveform collapses" for both particles. If you found that A was "spin up" (that's the term, don't blame me), then B collapses to "spin down" at exactly the same time. But since you can't choose the state A collapses to when you measure it, you can't use it to send a message.

If someone tells you otherwise, perhaps they're trying to increase sales of their "controversial" movie .

Ok, there is the problem with having to "run to other side of the room to verify results. And yes this keeps locality intact by default, but where is one place where time and space doesn't mean dick unless you want it too? ---Dream time. I must admit that any experimentation will be subject to default locality, because we have to wake up and verify with each other what happened. But during dream time.... Well, lets take a look at how we observe. We have our senses. Our eyes take in light and our mind translates that into an image. But in the dream time there really is no light. Its all made up in our head. This tells us that there is no time lag. This means it is possible to create things and they will appearinstantaneously , and we don't need to verify their existence- its your dream, you made it, it is there. Time for that matter is pretty much what we want it to be during dreams as well. I've read on these boards of people stretching their perception to make a dream seem like it lasted for days. The space between 1 and 2 is an irrational number.
So if anything it all comes back to perception.

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Hi Jahn,

I too find myself deviating from lucid dreaming and reading more and more of quantum physics, wave/particle duality, entanglement and the like.

I agree with PJ to some extent in that there is a link (though maybe not direct) between quantum theory and lucid dreaming. Both are 'things' or elements which swim around in this field of cosmic soup. They are not so much dependent on each other, but they do share a common place (or at least touch common points).

As for Bell's theorem, I've found that still a hard concept to grasp - but if you search for twin photon experiments you'll also find that it's been found that altering a photon in anyway will instantaneously effect it's twin, no matter how far apart. Is this the same principle? From what I understand, Bell's theorem had something to do with "hidden local variables".

The question is, what is it that you propose as far as an experiment for the Research Team? Or are you simply interested in an extended discussion?

"hidden local variables" I like what Einstein call it, " spooky action at a distance" Yes, it is the same principle.

I'm having the grandest time trying to conceive of how quantum mechanics and bell's inequality could have any more than a theoretical affect on the process of dreaming. If one took a classical computer as an analogy, there is plenty of room to speculate that certain QM effects can be used to enable two computers to communicate at a distance in some special way, but there must be a device connected to the computers to transmit and receive the data. The CPUs themselves cannot communicate to each other by themselves. Even though they utilize some very important quantum mechanical phenomena in their functions, those functions are specific and limited.

I haven't seen or heard of any evidence that thought processes in the brain utilize special quantum mechanical effects to carry out their functions, however. It doesn't mean it isn't so, but what makes neurons different from other cells is their classical behavior. Every cell possesses parts that rely on quantum mechanical phenomena, but only neurons are responsible for thought, and they have a straightforward, classical way of transmitting information.

For the ultimate proof, however, if a classical device, such as a neural network, of equivalent complexity and similar logic architecture, can be built to replicate the functions of the brain, then I would dismiss quantum phenomena as irrelevant to neural processes, such as dreaming. They may have their role to play, but it certainly would not be to enable thought or provide quantum abilities.

Originally Posted by pj

Look up Quantum Consciousness. It is a VERY solid connection between the two, and so much more.

I did, and I have to say it is interesting. I had never heard of it before. So far, I've only managed to read about the theories put forth by Stuart Hameroff on his website, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/. Something very interesting about the theory is that it seems to imply an explanation for both god (the big bang is theorized to have existed in a superposition condition similar to the one that they proposes is the source of consciousness, meaning the big bang was for a time conscious) and free will (our conscious reasoning would be tied to random and probablistic functions of quantum interactions, thus allowing for a non-deterministic explanation for decision making).

Still these theories are in their very early stages and have yet to actually propose a scientifically verifiable mechanism by which the quantum interactions of the 'tubules' in our neurons could create conscious thought. Either way, I'm glad you pointed me in this direction.

Originally Posted by jahnauasca

Ok, there is the problem with having to "run to other side of the room to verify results. And yes this keeps locality intact by default

Actually no.
Quantum entanglement doesn't allow you to transmit information faster than light.
However, it can't be explained with "hidden variables" either. As I said, the experiment I explained is rather pointless. You could do the exactly the same thing by not looking at the state of two conventional objects.

Other experiments with entanglement can't be explained by "hidden variables". Einstein was wrong - he didn't like quantum physics, and its difficult to blame him. Unfortunately this is the point the analogies break down, and you either have to take it on trust or get enough math to read the scientific papers. I'd suggest reading Greg Egans comments on the discussion at <http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1628>.

In other words: locality is *not* intact, but that doesn't allow superluminal (faster than light) signalling.

The problem with QM is "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" -- Richard Feynman.

Remember that all these spooky properties come from... well, science. A number of strange experimental results forced scientists to accept wave-particle duality. They constructed a theory which explained this duality, and made quantitative predictions (i.e. it included specific equations). Over time, more experimental results were generated and the theory was elaborated on (e.g. Bells paper). Scientists are generally good at working with the theories as logical and mathematical abstractions, and showing whether their results agree with their theory or not.

If there weren't scientists trying to figure out what makes the universe tick on a very small scale, no-one would have come up with quantum theory. Superposition, entanglement, non-locality, Heisenberg uncertainty - these are all very specific ideas which don't look anything like what we experience, awake, asleep, metaphysically or otherwise.

It's not a good idea to take this theory of physics that is understood to work for very small scales, and assume that it will explain the metaphysics of human scaled consciousness. Because if it doesn't, then you'll end up distorting both to make them fit together. You have to develop a good understanding of one side, and try to extend it towards the other. If you're not sure about either then combining them just increases the uncertainty.

, but where is one place where time and space doesn't mean dick unless you want it too? ---Dream time.

In that case, Dreaming is nothing like quantum physics. Quantum physics violates the principle of locality. But it doesn't simply ignore time and space in the way you can in dreams.

Similarly, quantum physics can't provide a mechanism for a collective unconsciousness. Proposed mechanisms for quantum consciousness haven't gotten very far, and the main criticism is the difficulty of maintaining the coherence of the brain as a quantum system (stopping it from decohering, i.e. collapsing the waveform to a single classical state). It's difficult to see how you could prevent decoherence over enough people to sustain a collective unconsciousness. You have to prevent the entangled particles from interacting with anything else at all.

And again, *entanglement doesn't allow communication*. This "collective unconsciousness" would only be able to make choices - it wouldn't be able to respond to events, because it couldn't communicate the fact of the event. Perhaps it could impose a shared dream on two people, but they wouldn't have free will during it - any choices would have to be determined by the collective, because individual choices can't be communicated. It wouldn't be a meeting of minds; it would be a merging of minds subordinated to the collective. Anything in the dream would have to come from something that was already present in the minds of both individuals.

If I told you that that's how shared dreams must work, because of quantum, you wouldn't believe me. I would be assuming that dreams worked like quantum physics, and distorting the concept of dreaming to fit. To me, what you're doing is distorting quantum concepts so they fit with dreams.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying sourcejedi because you seem to contradict yourself by both accepting non-locality and also saying that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, which is a big part of the definition of non-locality. Whats more, the experiments first done by Alain Aspect in 1982 have shown that bell's theorem is an accurate description of how things really work.

Whats more, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows how the effects of quantum mechanics can transcend time and space up to an infinite scale and the validity of it has been verified in several laboratory tests.

I actually hadn't thought about it in this context before, but this particular experiment shows perfectly how whatever it is we experience is only what we are expecting, and that all possibilities are actually expressed in reality, similar to how things work in our dreams.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying sourcejedi because you seem to contradict yourself by both accepting non-locality and also saying that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, which is a big part of the definition of non-locality.

Sorry. I was thinking along the lines of the "copenhagen interpretation", where you talk about waveforms collapsing. I was thinking that the simultaneous collapse of the waveforms of separated entangled particles violated non-locality.

I checked my assumptions on Wikipedia and it turns out my interpretation isn't generally applicable. The many-worlds interpretation is interpreted by some as preserving locality (by sacrificing "counterfactual definiteness").

Apparently people generally try to use definitions that avoid tying themselves to a specific interpretation. So they define locality as only being broken if you can transmit information faster than light. I maintain that this more specific definition of locality is *not* violated by quantum mechanics.

So I don't dispute Bells Theorem but I don't believe in FTL.

Does that make sense, or have I made another bad assumption? Can you understand the rest of that post now?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Whats more, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows how the effects of quantum mechanics can transcend time and space up to an infinite scale and the validity of it has been verified in several laboratory tests.

I actually hadn't thought about it in this context before, but this particular experiment shows perfectly how whatever it is we experience is only what we are expecting, and that all possibilities are actually expressed in reality, similar to how things work in our dreams.

That is one freaky experiment :-). I read it a while back in the New Scientist.

I'm not sure that's a useful way to look at it though. The experiment works the same whether it's a scientist choosing how to make the observation, or an automatic coin flipper. I think the experiment shows us how the universe works, not how our experiences relate to reality.

My problem with "experience is only what we are expecting" is that it requires a high level of solipsism. Ultimately you can only rely on your own experiences, but my personal experience is that there's a high degree of objective reality. And once I question that, it's difficult to discuss - well, anything. In particular though, if you are a figment of my imagination, or a product of my expectations, how can I discuss that fact with you?

For example, I might try to argue that if you were right, I should see catastrophic reality distortions caused by people in altered states of consciousness (dreaming, under the influence, fever-struck, tired), young children who don't know what to expect, people with mental illness. But that wouldn't be a valid argument - if you're right, then I don't see reality distortions because I don't expect them. When I'm in an altered state of consciousness, my reality would be distorted; when I return to a normal waking state, I would force my reality back to normal. It's good mental exercise, but surely if you're being solipsistic it's more natural to deny reality altogether?

Also, it seems like a contradiction in terms to collect evidence for solipsism by considering the results of a physics experiment, especially when it's not an experiment you've done yourself.

jahnauasca: I'm sorry, I didn't notice the link in your first post. That looks like a very nice paper (the other papers on the same page look good too).

Xaqaria: The link in jahnauasca's first post made the same assumption I did about "locality". If you still don't see why I said you can break locality but not be able to send information faster than light, you could skim this paper.

In particular, if you look at "Appendix I. Bell's Theorem and Relativity", it shows how we can't signal faster than light. Something seems to be happen in two different places at the same time, but there's no way to get the event to carry information between the two places, even though we triggered it.

Although Bell's experiment may not illustrate a faster than light transfer of information, faster than light travel is possible and has been verified by several experiments involving photon tunneling. So far, the fastest speed recorded for information has been 4.7 times the speed of light.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

That is one freaky experiment :-). I read it a while back in the New Scientist.

I'm not sure that's a useful way to look at it though. The experiment works the same whether it's a scientist choosing how to make the observation, or an automatic coin flipper. I think the experiment shows us how the universe works, not how our experiences relate to reality.

My problem with "experience is only what we are expecting" is that it requires a high level of solipsism. Ultimately you can only rely on your own experiences, but my personal experience is that there's a high degree of objective reality. And once I question that, it's difficult to discuss - well, anything. In particular though, if you are a figment of my imagination, or a product of my expectations, how can I discuss that fact with you?

For example, I might try to argue that if you were right, I should see catastrophic reality distortions caused by people in altered states of consciousness (dreaming, under the influence, fever-struck, tired), young children who don't know what to expect, people with mental illness. But that wouldn't be a valid argument - if you're right, then I don't see reality distortions because I don't expect them. When I'm in an altered state of consciousness, my reality would be distorted; when I return to a normal waking state, I would force my reality back to normal. It's good mental exercise, but surely if you're being solipsistic it's more natural to deny reality altogether?

Also, it seems like a contradiction in terms to collect evidence for solipsism by considering the results of a physics experiment, especially when it's not an experiment you've done yourself.

I don't think it is solipsism to come to the conclusion that our interpretation of reality is based much more heavily on our expectations than we thought. The reason why I say that Wheeler's experiment points in this direction is specifically because of his description of viewing a photon from a distant star that has bent around a massive body between here and there. This particular aspect of the delayed choice experiment offers two options. Either my decision about how I perceive the photon once it reaches the earth actually changes whether or not it bent to the right or to the left billions of years ago, or it actually bent both ways no matter what I do, but my choice effects my perception of it. To me, the latter makes more sense and uses far less assumptions about reality.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Although Bell's experiment may not illustrate a faster than light transfer of information, faster than light travel is possible and has been verified by several experiments involving photon tunneling. So far, the fastest speed recorded for information has been 4.7 times the speed of light.

/me reads link.

Characteristic of the discussion of the FTL/tunneling experiments is that the experimental results are relatively uncontroversial - it is their interpretation that the debate is about. As far as I can see, right now there is a consensus that in neither of the experiments, FTL-front velocities have been measured, and that thus there is no contradiction to Einstein causality or to special relativity's claim that no front speed can exceed light speed.

Characteristic of the discussion of the FTL/tunneling experiments is that the experimental results are relatively uncontroversial - it is their interpretation that the debate is about. As far as I can see, right now there is a consensus that in neither of the experiments, FTL-front velocities have been measured, and that thus there is no contradiction to Einstein causality or to special relativity's claim that no front speed can exceed light speed.

To me, this is the most interesting bit. Einstein made the assumption that since the front velocity cannot exceed 300,000 mps, then that must mean that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. What they've done is found a way to transmit information faster than the speed of light but without actually undermining the core of relativity. Although if they were to measure the front velocities and find that they are indeed greater than light speed it would have some pretty drastic implications.

Of course, experimentally this is still in beginning stages, but it manages to fit with all theoretical explanations of what should be happening, both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

To me, this is the most interesting bit. Einstein made the assumption that since the front velocity cannot exceed 300,000 mps, then that must mean that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. What they've done is found a way to transmit information faster than the speed of light but without actually undermining the core of relativity. Although if they were to measure the front velocities and find that they are indeed greater than light speed it would have some pretty drastic implications.

Of course, experimentally this is still in beginning stages, but it manages to fit with all theoretical explanations of what should be happening, both relativity and quantum mechanics.

But you can only transmit information (or energy) faster than light if the front velocity is faster than light. Again, from the link:

So, has special relativity been disproved, now that FTL speeds have been measured? The first problem with this naive conclusion is that, while in special relativity neither information nor energy are allowed to be transmitted faster than light, but that certain velocities in connection with the phenomena of wave transmission may well excede light speed. For instance, the phase velocity of a wave or the group velocity of a wave packet are not in principle restricted below light speed. The speed connected with wave phenomena that, according to special relativity, must never exceed light speed, is the front velocity

and yet information was clocked at faster than light speeds.

The Casimir effect is another way in which light can actually travel faster than light speed, through a negative energy density.

Also, there is a theory involving strange matter barriers that suggest that it may be possible for massive objects to travel at greater than light speeds but there really isn't that much info about it so I don't know that much. The basic theory as I understand it is is that strange matter exhibits properties of negative mass, and so can be used to create a spacial barrier that would in effect make a bubble in the fabric of space time. Anything inside the bubble would not move, and the bubble itself is insubstantial and so could move at greater than light speeds.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The Casimir effect is another way in which light can actually travel faster than light speed, through a negative energy density.

By stabilising a wormhole, right? Thanks for that - I'd heard of both negative-energy stabilised wormholes and the Casimir effect, but I'd not made the connection.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, there is a theory involving strange matter barriers that suggest that it may be possible for massive objects to travel at greater than light speeds but there really isn't that much info about it so I don't know that much. The basic theory as I understand it is is that strange matter exhibits properties of negative mass, and so can be used to create a spacial barrier that would in effect make a bubble in the fabric of space time. Anything inside the bubble would not move, and the bubble itself is insubstantial and so could move at greater than light speeds.

The Alcubierre warp drive... I'd heard of something similar. BTW in both cases, I came across them most recently in "The Science of Star Trek", which looks at modern physics and discusses what happens if you try to apply it to the TV series.

Interestingly it looks like the warp drive and wormhole solutions are closer than you might think. It looks like unless you have exotic matter that travels faster than light, you need to build what I might call a "warp highway", a series of devices which warp spacetime to propell your spaceship along it. You have to travel to your destination slower than light first, building the "warp highway"; only then can you use it for FTL. In a sense that's similar to wormhole FTL, where you create a pair of connected wormhole mouths and transport one mouth to your destination (using slower than light transport).

But these ideas don't come from quantum mechanics. They come from relativity; quantum mechanics isn't suggesting a new FTL mechanism here; it just gives us hope that some of the requirements e.g. negative energy are actually possible.

I'm sorry if I've been too vague or general, but what I've been trying to say is that quantum entanglement isn't a possible mechanism for transmitting information, faster than light or otherwise. Therefore, even though you might say quantum entanglement causes locality violations, it can't be a mechanism for shared dreams as jahnauasca suggested.

jahnauasca's initial suggestion is about EPR/Bell "spooky action at a distance". It's about the core mystery at heart of quantum mechanics. It's not about networks of negative-energy stabilised wormholes or invisible biological messengers equipped with warp drives.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

and yet information was clocked at faster than light speeds.

My current understanding is
1) the only way to use tunnelling to transmit information faster than c is if the front velocity could exceed c.
2) photon tunnelling does not allow front velocities in excess of c.

So you're claiming that 1) has been disproved - since you say 2) hasn't been disproved yet.
Do you have a specific reference, please?
It's difficult to take your statement on faith. I know many popular reports don't attempt to explain the fine points of the different types of velocity, and that often leads to confusion. Without a reference or an explanation I can't judge whether you're talking about an old misconception or a new development.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics>

There have been various reports in the popular press of experiments on faster-than-light transmission in optics — most often in the context of a kind of quantum tunneling phenomenon. Usually, such reports deal with a phase velocity or group velocity faster than the vacuum velocity of light. But, recall from above, that a superluminal phase velocity cannot be used for faster-than-light transmission of information. There has sometimes been confusion concerning the latter point.

The web page you linked earlier is mainly a list of references. I don't have time to look through them all and guess which ones you're thinking of.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I haven't seen or heard of any evidence that thought processes in the brain utilize special quantum mechanical effects to carry out their functions, however. It doesn't mean it isn't so, but what makes neurons different from other cells is their classical behavior. Every cell possesses parts that rely on quantum mechanical phenomena, but only neurons are responsible for thought, and they have a straightforward, classical way of transmitting information.

For the ultimate proof, however, if a classical device, such as a neural network, of equivalent complexity and similar logic architecture, can be built to replicate the functions of the brain, then I would dismiss quantum phenomena as irrelevant to neural processes, such as dreaming. They may have their role to play, but it certainly would not be to enable thought or provide quantum abilities.

I don't think there's any evidence for it, but there is a developed theory about quantum effects in the brain as a whole, based not on neurons but "microtubules". It does have some followers. Unfortunately it relies on shielding effects (to prevent decoherence) which have not been confirmed experimentally.

Unfortunately I don't think we're going to see a human equivalent machine intelligence in the near future either. It's not just about simulating large numbers of neurons. AFAIK current computer models of neurons simplify away a number of significant features. And I think there's a significant challenge in scanning the entire architecture of a human brain. Our computers are already hitting fundamental limits, and we don't yet have a big enough computer to simulate a neural network with the same amount neurons as us. So there are a number of hard barriers before we reach that point.