DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Does Consciousness Really Collapse the Wave Function?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Does Consciousness Really Collapse the Wave Function? Does consciousness really collapse the wave function?: A possible objective biophysical resolution of the measurement problem Fred H. Thaheld* 99 Cable Circle #20 Folsom, Calif. 95630 USA Abstract An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position, expanded upon by Shimony, which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process. Keywords: Consciousness; Euglena; Linear; Measurement problem; Nonlinear; Objective; Retina; Rhodopsin molecule; Subjective; Wave function collapse. * e-mail address: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction What is the measurement problem and why is the act of measurement deemed so important in quantum mechanics that it has engendered such spirited discussion for over 7 decades? The measurement problem can be approached in the following fashion. von Neumann (1932) advanced the theory that the possible states of a system can be characterized by state vectors, also known as wave functions, which change in two ways: continuously in a linear fashion as a result of a passage of time, as per Schrödinger’s equation and, discontinuously if a measurement is carried out on the system (Wigner, 1961; Shimony, 1963). This second type of discontinuous change, called the reduction of the state vector or collapse of the wave function, is unacceptable to many physicists. The measurement problem can then be posed as how and when does the wave function collapse or, how does a state reduction to one of the eigenstates of the measured observable occur. von Neumann (1932) was the first one to conceive this problem in terms of what is known as the ‘von Neumann chain’ (Esfeld, 1999). He starts with a quantum object, an observable of which is to be measured. However, based on the formalism of quantum theory and the Schrödinger dynamics in particular, as a result of the interaction between the object and the measuring instrument, the object is entangled with the instrument. von Neumann extends this chain up to an observer but, if we take an observer into consideration, we simply end up with a description according to which the body of the observer, including his or her brain, is entangled with the instrument and the object. The measurement problem can then be further refined as to how it is that a state reduction to one of the eigenstates of the measured observable can occur in this chain (Esfeld, 1999). 2 von Neumann showed that as far as final results are concerned, you can cut the chain and insert a collapse anywhere you please (Herbert, 1985). He felt that the process by which a physical signal in the brain becomes an experience in the human mind or human consciousness, is the site of the wave function collapse. London and Bauer (1939) have postulated that consciousness randomly selects one product state out of the superposition of product states, thereby effecting a state reduction. Wigner (1961) feels that consciousness or the mind, plays a more directly physical role, adding an extra term to the mathematical equations and hence, selecting one particular branch of the wave function and one particular result for the experiment, thus producing the effect that von Neumann called collapse. They feel therefore, that this is a subjective rather than an objective process. Like von Neumann and, London and Bauer before him, Wigner did not give many details to back up his idea (Whitaker, 1996, p. 201; Esfeld, 1999). Wigner readily concedes that we do not have at our disposal a description of how a state reduction is effected by consciousness. He goes on further to state, with remarkable candor that, “We are facing here the perennial question, whether we physicists do not go beyond our competence when searching for philosophical truth. I believe that we probably do” (Wigner, 1963). He suggests that the dynamics of quantum theory has to be modified in such a way that events of state reduction by consciousness are taken into account (Wigner, 1963). And, he further feels that the equations of motion of quantum mechanics cease to be linear, in fact they are grossly nonlinear if conscious beings enter the picture. Shimony (1963) feels that the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics will be resolved by discovering corrections to the physical theory itself, for example, by finding 3 that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is only an approximation to an exact nonlinear equation governing the evolution of the state of a system. If this proves to be true, then he advances the theory that the reduction of a superposition could perhaps occur when the microscopic system interacts with the macroscopic apparatus, and no appeal to the consciousness of an observer for this purpose would be required. In his later years Wigner changed his position to an exactly opposite viewpoint, in order to avoid solipsism and the role that consciousness plays, closely mirroring that postulated by Shimony (Mehra, 1995, p. 593). Wigner considered it to be necessary to admit state reductions independently of an observer’s consciousness, and makes a concrete suggestion for an amendment of the Schrödinger equation which is intended to describe a physical process of state reduction (Mehra, 1995. pp. 73, 230). A state reduction is now felt by Wigner to occur as an objective event in the physical realm before the von Neumann chain reaches the consciousness of an observer (Mehra, 1995, pp. 75-77; 242-243; Esfeld, 1999). It is of historic interest to note here that Dirac (1930), who invented the idea of wave function collapse, said that it is nature that makes the choice of measuremental result; once made the choice is ‘irreversible and will affect the entire future state of the world’ (Kragh, 1990). It is felt by the author that Shimony and Wigner are pointing us in a direction which may finally lead to a resolution of the measurement problem through a cooperative blending of certain philosophical, theoretical and empirical aspects in the realms of quantum mechanics and biology, with emphasis on the eye in the role of a living 4 macroscopic measuring instrument, serving to terminate the von Neumann chain in an objective discontinuous nonlinear fashion. 2. The eye as a macroscopic apparatus and its possible role in resolving the measurement problem One can more readily grasp the essentials of the measurement problem from a biological viewpoint by studying the diagram of the visual pathways in primates in Fig. 1 (Dowling, 1987). Visual information from the eyes in the form of retinal ganglion cell spike trains passes, via the optic nerve, to the lateral geniculate nucleus and is relayed from there via the optic radiation to the visual cortex. In primates the eyes face forward and the visual fields of each eye overlap. Information from the right visual field in the form of photons is received by the left half of each retina and vice versa. At the optic chiasm, the fibers from the right and left sides of the two retinas are sorted out so that information from the right visual field projects to the left side of the brain and information from the left visual field projects to the right side of the brain. Further compounding this problem is that the eye, which is a most complex piece of apparatus (Fig. 2), seems to have been treated in a very simplistic fashion with regards to the measurement problem, with only the retina being considered as possibly playing a role in the measurement problem and, a limited one at that. I have pointed out in previous papers (Thaheld, 2000; 2003) how the eye mistakenly got relegated to a minor, almost nonexistent role, when it should have been accorded a more prominent position. Without belaboring the point again, several physicists repeatedly cited experimental results (or each other’s references!) incorrectly, showing that the threshold for visual perception in humans varies from 3-7 photons or quanta impinging upon the retina, 5 without taking into consideration how many more photons are required initially to achieve this threshold due to the high losses sustained in their passage (Hecht et al, 1942). What von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner (initially) are claiming is that superposed states which are received in the form of photons by the eyes (Fig. 1,2) and are transduced or converted into analogous electrical information, move on as shown in the diagram until they are received by the primary visual cortex and the brain. A state reduction is supposedly then brought about only when the consciousness of an observer is reached (Wigner, 1961; 1963). If one examines this matter in detail, it begins to appear that they were incorrect in their assumptions, based on the following analysis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Degruyter Opphil Opphil-2020-0010 147..160 ++
    Open Philosophy 2020; 3: 147–160 Object Oriented Ontology and Its Critics Simon Weir* Living and Nonliving Occasionalism https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0010 received November 05, 2019; accepted February 14, 2020 Abstract: Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology has employed a variant of occasionalist causation since 2002, with sensual objects acting as the mediators of causation between real objects. While the mechanism for living beings creating sensual objects is clear, how nonliving objects generate sensual objects is not. This essay sets out an interpretation of occasionalism where the mediating agency of nonliving contact is the virtual particles of nominally empty space. Since living, conscious, real objects need to hold sensual objects as sub-components, but nonliving objects do not, this leads to an explanation of why consciousness, in Object-Oriented Ontology, might be described as doubly withdrawn: a sensual sub-component of a withdrawn real object. Keywords: Graham Harman, ontology, objects, Timothy Morton, vicarious, screening, virtual particle, consciousness 1 Introduction When approaching Graham Harman’s fourfold ontology, it is relatively easy to understand the first steps if you begin from an anthropocentric position of naive realism: there are real objects that have their real qualities. Then apart from real objects are the objects of our perception, which Harman calls sensual objects, which are reduced distortions or caricatures of the real objects we perceive; and these sensual objects have their own sensual qualities. It is common sense that when we perceive a steaming espresso, for example, that we, as the perceivers, create the image of that espresso in our minds – this image being what Harman calls a sensual object – and that we supply the energy to produce this sensual object.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 1 Old Quantum Theory
    UNIT 1 OLD QUANTUM THEORY Structure Introduction Objectives li;,:overy of Sub-atomic Particles Earlier Atom Models Light as clectromagnetic Wave Failures of Classical Physics Black Body Radiation '1 Heat Capacity Variation Photoelectric Effect Atomic Spectra Planck's Quantum Theory, Black Body ~diation. and Heat Capacity Variation Einstein's Theory of Photoelectric Effect Bohr Atom Model Calculation of Radius of Orbits Energy of an Electron in an Orbit Atomic Spectra and Bohr's Theory Critical Analysis of Bohr's Theory Refinements in the Atomic Spectra The61-y Summary Terminal Questions Answers 1.1 INTRODUCTION The ideas of classical mechanics developed by Galileo, Kepler and Newton, when applied to atomic and molecular systems were found to be inadequate. Need was felt for a theory to describe, correlate and predict the behaviour of the sub-atomic particles. The quantum theory, proposed by Max Planck and applied by Einstein and Bohr to explain different aspects of behaviour of matter, is an important milestone in the formulation of the modern concept of atom. In this unit, we will study how black body radiation, heat capacity variation, photoelectric effect and atomic spectra of hydrogen can be explained on the basis of theories proposed by Max Planck, Einstein and Bohr. They based their theories on the postulate that all interactions between matter and radiation occur in terms of definite packets of energy, known as quanta. Their ideas, when extended further, led to the evolution of wave mechanics, which shows the dual nature of matter
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Theory of the Hydrogen Atom
    Quantum Theory of the Hydrogen Atom Chemistry 35 Fall 2000 Balmer and the Hydrogen Spectrum n 1885: Johann Balmer, a Swiss schoolteacher, empirically deduced a formula which predicted the wavelengths of emission for Hydrogen: l (in Å) = 3645.6 x n2 for n = 3, 4, 5, 6 n2 -4 •Predicts the wavelengths of the 4 visible emission lines from Hydrogen (which are called the Balmer Series) •Implies that there is some underlying order in the atom that results in this deceptively simple equation. 2 1 The Bohr Atom n 1913: Niels Bohr uses quantum theory to explain the origin of the line spectrum of hydrogen 1. The electron in a hydrogen atom can exist only in discrete orbits 2. The orbits are circular paths about the nucleus at varying radii 3. Each orbit corresponds to a particular energy 4. Orbit energies increase with increasing radii 5. The lowest energy orbit is called the ground state 6. After absorbing energy, the e- jumps to a higher energy orbit (an excited state) 7. When the e- drops down to a lower energy orbit, the energy lost can be given off as a quantum of light 8. The energy of the photon emitted is equal to the difference in energies of the two orbits involved 3 Mohr Bohr n Mathematically, Bohr equated the two forces acting on the orbiting electron: coulombic attraction = centrifugal accelleration 2 2 2 -(Z/4peo)(e /r ) = m(v /r) n Rearranging and making the wild assumption: mvr = n(h/2p) n e- angular momentum can only have certain quantified values in whole multiples of h/2p 4 2 Hydrogen Energy Levels n Based on this model, Bohr arrived at a simple equation to calculate the electron energy levels in hydrogen: 2 En = -RH(1/n ) for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1511.01069V1 [Quant-Ph]
    To appear in Contemporary Physics Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics Timothy J. Hollowood Department of Physics, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, U.K. (September 2015) In our quantum mechanics courses, measurement is usually taught in passing, as an ad-hoc procedure involving the ugly collapse of the wave function. No wonder we search for more satisfying alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation. But this overlooks the fact that the approach fits very well with modern measurement theory with its notions of the conditioned state and quantum trajectory. In addition, what we know of as the Copenhagen interpretation is a later 1950’s development and some of the earlier pioneers like Bohr did not talk of wave function collapse. In fact, if one takes these earlier ideas and mixes them with later insights of decoherence, a much more satisfying version of Copenhagen quantum mechanics emerges, one for which the collapse of the wave function is seen to be a harmless book keeping device. Along the way, we explain why chaotic systems lead to wave functions that spread out quickly on macroscopic scales implying that Schr¨odinger cat states are the norm rather than curiosities generated in physicists’ laboratories. We then describe how the conditioned state of a quantum system depends crucially on how the system is monitored illustrating this with the example of a decaying atom monitored with a time of arrival photon detector, leading to Bohr’s quantum jumps. On the other hand, other kinds of detection lead to much smoother behaviour, providing yet another example of complementarity. Finally we explain how classical behaviour emerges, including classical mechanics but also thermodynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Vibrational Quantum Number
    Fundamentals in Biophotonics Quantum nature of atoms, molecules – matter Aleksandra Radenovic [email protected] EPFL – Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Bioengineering Institute IBI 26. 03. 2018. Quantum numbers •The four quantum numbers-are discrete sets of integers or half- integers. –n: Principal quantum number-The first describes the electron shell, or energy level, of an atom –ℓ : Orbital angular momentum quantum number-as the angular quantum number or orbital quantum number) describes the subshell, and gives the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum through the relation Ll2 ( 1) –mℓ:Magnetic (azimuthal) quantum number (refers, to the direction of the angular momentum vector. The magnetic quantum number m does not affect the electron's energy, but it does affect the probability cloud)- magnetic quantum number determines the energy shift of an atomic orbital due to an external magnetic field-Zeeman effect -s spin- intrinsic angular momentum Spin "up" and "down" allows two electrons for each set of spatial quantum numbers. The restrictions for the quantum numbers: – n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . – ℓ = 0, 1, 2, 3, . , n − 1 – mℓ = − ℓ, − ℓ + 1, . , 0, 1, . , ℓ − 1, ℓ – –Equivalently: n > 0 The energy levels are: ℓ < n |m | ≤ ℓ ℓ E E 0 n n2 Stern-Gerlach experiment If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by a different amount, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple Proof That the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Inconsistent
    A simple proof that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is inconsistent Shan Gao Research Center for Philosophy of Science and Technology, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, P. R. China E-mail: [email protected]. December 25, 2018 Abstract The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on three key assumptions: (1) the completeness of the physical description by means of the wave function, (2) the linearity of the dynamics for the wave function, and (3) multiplicity. In this paper, I argue that the combination of these assumptions may lead to a contradiction. In order to avoid the contradiction, we must drop one of these key assumptions. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) assumes that the wave function of a physical system is a complete description of the system, and the wave function always evolves in accord with the linear Schr¨odingerequation. In order to solve the measurement problem, MWI further assumes that after a measurement with many possible results there appear many equally real worlds, in each of which there is a measuring device which obtains a definite result (Everett, 1957; DeWitt and Graham, 1973; Barrett, 1999; Wallace, 2012; Vaidman, 2014). In this paper, I will argue that MWI may give contradictory predictions for certain unitary time evolution. Consider a simple measurement situation, in which a measuring device M interacts with a measured system S. When the state of S is j0iS, the state of M does not change after the interaction: j0iS jreadyiM ! j0iS jreadyiM : (1) When the state of S is j1iS, the state of M changes and it obtains a mea- surement result: j1iS jreadyiM ! j1iS j1iM : (2) 1 The interaction can be represented by a unitary time evolution operator, U.
    [Show full text]
  • Demnächst Auch in Ihrem Laptop?
    The Measurement Problem Johannes Kofler Quantum Foundations Seminar Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics Munich, December 12th 2011 The measurement problem Different aspects: • How does the wavefunction collapse occur? Does it even occur at all? • How does one know whether something is a system or a measurement apparatus? When does one apply the Schrödinger equation (continuous and deterministic evolution) and when the projection postulate (discontinuous and probabilistic)? • How real is the wavefunction? Does the measurement only reveal pre-existing properties or “create reality”? Is quantum randomness reducible or irreducible? • Are there macroscopic superposition states (Schrödinger cats)? Where is the border between quantum mechanics and classical physics? The Kopenhagen interpretation • Wavefunction: mathematical tool, “catalogue of knowledge” (Schrödinger) not a description of objective reality • Measurement: leads to collapse of the wavefunction (Born rule) • Properties: wavefunction: non-realistic randomness: irreducible • “Heisenberg cut” between system and apparatus: “[T]here arises the necessity to draw a clear dividing line in the description of atomic processes, between the measuring apparatus of the observer which is described in classical concepts, and the object under observation, whose behavior is represented by a wave function.” (Heisenberg) • Classical physics as limiting case and as requirement: “It is decisive to recognize that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the
    [Show full text]
  • The Quantum Mechanical Model of the Atom
    The Quantum Mechanical Model of the Atom Quantum Numbers In order to describe the probable location of electrons, they are assigned four numbers called quantum numbers. The quantum numbers of an electron are kind of like the electron’s “address”. No two electrons can be described by the exact same four quantum numbers. This is called The Pauli Exclusion Principle. • Principle quantum number: The principle quantum number describes which orbit the electron is in and therefore how much energy the electron has. - it is symbolized by the letter n. - positive whole numbers are assigned (not including 0): n=1, n=2, n=3 , etc - the higher the number, the further the orbit from the nucleus - the higher the number, the more energy the electron has (this is sort of like Bohr’s energy levels) - the orbits (energy levels) are also called shells • Angular momentum (azimuthal) quantum number: The azimuthal quantum number describes the sublevels (subshells) that occur in each of the levels (shells) described above. - it is symbolized by the letter l - positive whole number values including 0 are assigned: l = 0, l = 1, l = 2, etc. - each number represents the shape of a subshell: l = 0, represents an s subshell l = 1, represents a p subshell l = 2, represents a d subshell l = 3, represents an f subshell - the higher the number, the more complex the shape of the subshell. The picture below shows the shape of the s and p subshells: (notice the electron clouds) • Magnetic quantum number: All of the subshells described above (except s) have more than one orientation.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
    Chapter 4, page 1 4 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Pieter Zeeman observed in 1896 the splitting of optical spectral lines in the field of an electromagnet. Since then, the splitting of energy levels proportional to an external magnetic field has been called the "Zeeman effect". The "Zeeman resonance effect" causes magnetic resonances which are classified under radio frequency spectroscopy (rf spectroscopy). In these resonances, the transitions between two branches of a single energy level split in an external magnetic field are measured in the megahertz and gigahertz range. In 1944, Jevgeni Konstantinovitch Savoiski discovered electron paramagnetic resonance. Shortly thereafter in 1945, nuclear magnetic resonance was demonstrated almost simultaneously in Boston by Edward Mills Purcell and in Stanford by Felix Bloch. Nuclear magnetic resonance was sometimes called nuclear induction or paramagnetic nuclear resonance. It is generally abbreviated to NMR. So as not to scare prospective patients in medicine, reference to the "nuclear" character of NMR is dropped and the magnetic resonance based imaging systems (scanner) found in hospitals are simply referred to as "magnetic resonance imaging" (MRI). 4.1 The Nuclear Resonance Effect Many atomic nuclei have spin, characterized by the nuclear spin quantum number I. The absolute value of the spin angular momentum is L =+h II(1). (4.01) The component in the direction of an applied field is Lz = Iz h ≡ m h. (4.02) The external field is usually defined along the z-direction. The magnetic quantum number is symbolized by Iz or m and can have 2I +1 values: Iz ≡ m = −I, −I+1, ..., I−1, I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B
    The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B. C. Sanctuary Department of Chemistry, McGill University 801 Sherbrooke Street W Montreal, PQ, H3A 2K6, Canada Abstract Entangled EPR spin pairs can be treated using the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the singlet state results from an ensemble of spin pairs each with an arbitrary axis of quantization. This axis acts as a quantum mechanical hidden variable. If the spins lose coherence they disentangle into a mixed state. Whether or not the EPR spin pairs retain entanglement or disentangle, however, the statistical ensemble interpretation resolves the EPR paradox and gives a mechanism for quantum “teleportation” without the need for instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Keywords: Statistical ensemble, entanglement, disentanglement, quantum correlations, EPR paradox, Bell’s inequalities, quantum non-locality and locality, coincidence detection 1. Introduction The fundamental questions of quantum mechanics (QM) are rooted in the philosophical interpretation of the wave function1. At the time these were first debated, covering the fifty or so years following the formulation of QM, the arguments were based primarily on gedanken experiments2. Today the situation has changed with numerous experiments now possible that can guide us in our search for the true nature of the microscopic world, and how The Infamous Boundary3 to the macroscopic world is breached. The current view is based upon pivotal experiments, performed by Aspect4 showing that quantum mechanics is correct and Bell’s inequalities5 are violated. From this the non-local nature of QM became firmly entrenched in physics leading to other experiments, notably those demonstrating that non-locally is fundamental to quantum “teleportation”.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit
    Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit Sasu Tuohino B. Sc. Thesis Department of Physical Sciences Theoretical Physics University of Oulu 2017 Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Classical network theory4 2.1 From electromagnetic fields to circuit elements.........4 2.2 Generalized flux and charge....................6 2.3 Node variables as degrees of freedom...............7 3 Hamiltonians for electric circuits8 3.1 LC Circuit and DC voltage source................8 3.2 Cooper-Pair Box.......................... 10 3.2.1 Josephson junction.................... 10 3.2.2 Dynamics of the Cooper-pair box............. 11 3.3 Transmon qubit.......................... 12 3.3.1 Cavity resonator...................... 12 3.3.2 Shunt capacitance CB .................. 12 3.3.3 Transmon Lagrangian................... 13 3.3.4 Matrix notation in the Legendre transformation..... 14 3.3.5 Hamiltonian of transmon................. 15 4 Classical dynamics of transmon qubit 16 4.1 Equations of motion for transmon................ 16 4.1.1 Relations with voltages.................. 17 4.1.2 Shunt resistances..................... 17 4.1.3 Linearized Josephson inductance............. 18 4.1.4 Relation with currents................... 18 4.2 Control and read-out signals................... 18 4.2.1 Transmission line model.................. 18 4.2.2 Equations of motion for coupled transmission line.... 20 4.3 Quantum notation......................... 22 5 Numerical solutions for equations of motion 23 5.1 Design parameters of the transmon................ 23 5.2 Resonance shift at nonlinear regime............... 24 6 Conclusions 27 1 Abstract The focus of this thesis is on classical dynamics of a transmon qubit. First we introduce the basic concepts of the classical circuit analysis and use this knowledge to derive the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians of an LC circuit, a Cooper-pair box, and ultimately we derive Hamiltonian for a transmon qubit.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract for Non Ideal Measurements by David Albert (Philosophy, Columbia) and Barry Loewer (Philosophy, Rutgers)
    Abstract for Non Ideal Measurements by David Albert (Philosophy, Columbia) and Barry Loewer (Philosophy, Rutgers) We have previously objected to "modal interpretations" of quantum theory by showing that these interpretations do not solve the measurement problem since they do not assign outcomes to non_ideal measurements. Bub and Healey replied to our objection by offering alternative accounts of non_ideal measurements. In this paper we argue first, that our account of non_ideal measurements is correct and second, that even if it is not it is very likely that interactions which we called non_ideal measurements actually occur and that such interactions possess outcomes. A defense of of the modal interpretation would either have to assign outcomes to these interactions, show that they don't have outcomes, or show that in fact they do not occur in nature. Bub and Healey show none of these. Key words: Foundations of Quantum Theory, The Measurement Problem, The Modal Interpretation, Non_ideal measurements. Non_Ideal Measurements Some time ago, we raised a number of rather serious objections to certain so_called "modal" interpretations of quantum theory (Albert and Loewer, 1990, 1991).1 Andrew Elby (1993) recently developed one of these objections (and added some of his own), and Richard Healey (1993) and Jeffrey Bub (1993) have recently published responses to us and Elby. It is the purpose of this note to explain why we think that their responses miss the point of our original objection. Since Elby's, Bub's, and Healey's papers contain excellent descriptions both of modal theories and of our objection to them, only the briefest review of these matters will be necessary here.
    [Show full text]