Being in two Different Places Simultaneously
Hi,
I am sure you have heard about Quantum superposition, a principle that suggests that particles can exist in two different places simultaneously.
The following is the reason I find this principle so odd. Something cannot be only in two different places. Suppose one is in location A and it is also in location B, which is to the right of A. The object that is in location A is also in the location B which is to the right. The object in location B is not also in a location to the right of itself. So the object in location A and B cannot be the same thing.
I am sure you have heard about Quantum superposition, a principle that suggests that particles can exist in two different places simultaneously.
The following is the reason I find this principle so odd. Something cannot be only in two different places. Suppose one is in location A and it is also in location B, which is to the right of A. The object that is in location A is also in the location B which is to the right. The object in location B is not also in a location to the right of itself. So the object in location A and B cannot be the same thing.
Comments (18)
River = left fork + right fork
The river exists in both locations. You could also navigate a boat along the river, i.e., along either the left fork or right fork. As long as one is clear on whether one is talking about the overall state (River) or one of simpler states (e.g., the left fork), then there need be no confusion.
Aside: The actual physical picture outside of measurement is a matter of interpretation. What physicists do agree on is that the superposition provides information for calculating the probability of measuring the particle in one of the locations.
Three Magnemite = Magneton.
Perhaps it is actually a very fast vibration between two places.
That thread is about a different subject. The other thread is about two objects occupying the same space simultaneously.
No; this is the very same thread, just in a different place....
SO why should we have a problem with the very same object being in the very same time at two different places? (Apart, that is, from the contorted grammar...)
I don't know enough about QM to know if you are right with this analogy, BUT I SURE HOPE YOU ARE :smile: This seems a great analogy that does help even idiots like me to understand.
Quoting Banno
Dang, you nailed that one. :rofl:
In Quantum Mechanics, there are a couple of primary interpretations: "many worlds interpretation" and "copenhagen interpretation". I think reviewing the many worlds interpretation helps it seem somewhat plausible without losing all of your sanity.
Thanks! It's even adaptable to your favorite interpretation:
Pilot wave theory: An invisible river guides the boat.
Many Worlds: There is a boat on each fork of the river.
Copenhagen: There is no river until you launch the boat.
RQM: In your reference frame there is a boat on the river.
QBism: You should believe there is a boat on the river.
Consciousness causes collapse: Your mind creates the river. And the boat.
Instrumentalism: We don't talk about the river.
:lol:
"Consciousness causes collapse: Your mind creates the river. And the boat."
Hey Andrew, just curious, would that be more in keeping with an Idealist model?
Accordingly, I was thinking about the conscious and subconscious mind creating two separate realities:
"Sometimes, you are so much into cognitive processes and imagination that your existence shrinks down to only physical presence because you are mentally somewhere else. Missing road turns while driving or adding wrong ingredients while cooking are common examples in this regard."
Does that mean we can perceive two realities at one time viz. our consciousness or conscious states of Being?
Yep, the great analogy continues. It is like listening to Michio Kaku, I usually feel like his topics of discussion are beyond me, but his explanations allow me to at least feel like I understand.
I think I know the answer to 3017amen's question, but I am far more interested in your answer :grin:
"Consciousness causes collapse" has a history of being associated with quantum mysticism and is generally dismissed by physicists these days.
The other interpretations are usually considered realist by their proponents. This paper provides a useful classification into so-called intrinsic realist interpretations (including Pilot wave theory and Many Worlds) and participatory realist interpretations (including Copenhagen, RQM and QBism). So that may be of interest.
Quoting 3017amen
I read that quote as noting that sometimes we are highly focused on our immediate environment, whereas at other times we are distracted or thinking about other things. I don't see any out-of-the-ordinary philosophical implications there.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Glad you enjoyed it! There's a lot of interesting work being done in quantum foundations and learning it is an effective way to give one's philosophical assumptions a workout.
"I don't see any out-of-the-ordinary philosophical implications there."
Great!
Are you thinking that would simply indicate that the subconscious mind and the conscious mind are working in unison? (This is not a rhetorical question: If so, how is that explainable?)
This is one if the central puzzles of QM. What information we have seems to affect the measurement results, even if we seemingly gain information and then later throw it away. See the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (after learning about standard double-slit). Nobody actually knows what this really means. There is no way to experimentally decide which interpretation is correct. Maybe none is.
Some also think of entanglement as maybe involving a situation of one thing being in two places. I don't. But it isn't completely clear what's going on there really.
But it is a mistake to say that QM definitely shows us particles being in multiple locations. It doesn't.
One interesting thing to realize is that nobody has ever even seen a photon in flight! Such things might not even exist except in models.
I suppose I don't really think in terms of "subconscious mind" and "conscious mind", I just see mind as an abstraction over an agent's intelligent activity. If an abstraction creates a philosophical problem, we can just go back to the concrete scenarios (e.g., a driver attentive to the immediate environment versus thinking about something else). The investigation of the processes involved seem to be a matter for science.
Agreed, the measurements are the data points. Whereas the underlying structure of the world is still a matter of interpretation.
Quoting petrichor
Since photons are the means by which we see things, I suppose we would need to bounce photons off the in-flight photon in order to see it. Unfortunately photons don't interact with each other. And even if they did, a photon would be too small to see. Nonetheless a human retina can respond to a single photon (in a dark room).
Also QM is generally considered to scale up to the whole universe. For example, quantum behavior has been observed in objects visible to the naked eye such as with the piezoelectric tuning fork experiment (with about 10 trillion atoms).