The Yoga of Time Travel and Dr. Quantum’s World 2005-03-31 16:37:00

Posted by Fred Alan Wolf | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 31-03-2005 | Print This Post |
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

0

Hi everybody and thanks for following along on Dr. Quantum’s adventure in this land of dreams and nightmares. I have been getting loads of questions from you all—usually you send to me at my email address questions@fredalanwolf.com. I thought I would share a few with you in this blog. Question: Can a machine or measuring device collapse the quantum wave function and turn a possibility into a real event? Answer: A measuring device does not collapse the wave function according to quantum physics. That assumption although popular and practical turns out to be incorrect as careful experiment indicates. There have been a number of schemes attempting to add an ad hoc assumption to quantum physics to take care of the “measurement problem” but none are consistent. Some take it that since a device is “classical” and noisy, the device couples in the following way: Take a coin that is flipped so that it lands somewhere. Make it a simple atomic coin like the spin of an electron. The coin can land H or T and the device D can therefore point to Dh or Dt. If the device is a good device then according to quantum physics we get the following scenario: Dt*T+Dh*H, as the final quantum wave function. Since Dt and Dh are very complex quantum wave functions the probability that there is any overlap between them is practically nil. Now an observer comes on the scene. The observer S can see the instrument and can see St or Sh. Hence the observer thinks the coin has landed one way or the other but the actual situation is both St*Dt*T+Sh*Dh*H. These two worlds are very complex and any overlap between them is practically nil. If we assume there is no overlap this becomes what is called the “decoherent phase approximation.” It is then envisioned that the system has “become” classical and the quantum coin is now behaving as if it has a real side showing and the device has a observed that side and the observer has observed that device. But take care it is only an assumption that appears...