Luc Turpin

Yup! I am aware of such theories, but might be showing my lack of knowledge, again: are we not mostly still using linear theories to understand our world? And, maybe the most obvious answer to you, but still need to ask the question even if I look stupid! Qm equations are linear or non linear?

Loud and clear; it was more than my original impression of what it meant. i may be going off on a tangent again, but to me we live in a non-linear world, and if it is such, should we not have non-linear theories trying to explain it?

One needs pushing at times in order to extend the number of operations which can be performed without thinking Both Myself and Joigus (i believe) were under the impression that it was envelope "pushing" that was mis-understood; which I have to say surprised me, because you are so knowledgeable ; as for "develop", I have an idea of what is meant, but will let Joigus respond, if he wishes to do so! At times, my English is so-so, because I am happier in French.

Because I am all over the place! Will now focus more! Althought, I still have made attempts with past posts to summarize ideas that you presented. As you might have noticed, I am more a summary king of person rather than a detailed one! It has its ups and down! Again, I As in pushing the envelope; meaning testing limits and trying out new, often radical ideas, which I will be doing in other parts of Science Forums.

Point well taken! We will keep to the basic ideas of QM here! And contemplate presenting elswhere fringe ideas! Let the learning continue! Know so little and learning so much that I often get lost in all of it!

I thought They were

Are-these articles better suited? Both from Nature! Hope that they are not from Deepak's mates I need guidance in interpretation; if you have time for this The first appears to show human choices in QM (although weak; it think; may be an artifact) And the second one appears to make use of a random number generator to ensure independance from human choices to close-off a loophole in the Bell test. Right? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05885-0

So, Scientific American is not a valid source of info; din't know; found them relevant at times! And din't know as well that they were buddies of Deepak! So, all that is in the blog is invalid? I am surprised! Will be more careful next time! Apologies to both Genady and studiot for my naivety Need to ponder what just happened here! I often times read things while holding my nose, because I need to know what the other side is thinking. Like in war or politic, I want to hear from both sides, even if one appears to be out of touch with reality.

Thank you for being my teacher; don’t know why you are doing it, but I appreciate it immensely (and learning a lot): What I got from the text: An old theory is replaced when it fails to explain new observations (experiment results). ·The new theory must explain observations covered by the old theory and attempt to explain new observations not covered by the old theory. There are several levels of wave theories with each one adding more precision, but also difficulty (as in problems??) Am I missing any important point? Is there an underlining message that I am not getting? I feel compelled to think that the scientific process is a "perpetual forward moving work in progress". And, depending on your answer to the difficulty-problem question, may also be moving sideways at times to contend with difficulty. What I am getting also is that an answer to a question often times brings up another question, and so on. And the answer to this question, if it was you to answer it would be no? right? Point well taken! No one wishing to take this one on?

Thanks! I will read this with a pair of fresh eyes tomorrow!

Anyone care to comment? or this is old school as well! Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics - Scientific American Blog Network

No, I have not! But would like to hear about it! And all this time, I thought it was a marsupial 😏

Than you Thank you

I am hesitant at responding as I am struggling with comprehension and semantic. Nonetheless, I will try again. 1- The detector is set-up between slit-screen and back-plate,but does not measure anything (in this case, there is an interference pattern on the back-plate -right?). 2- The detector is set-up between slit-screen and back-plate, makes a measurement, but keeps the measurement information to itself (talking as if it was a sentient being!!!); does not share it!! (in this case, no interference pattern-right?There is collapse of the wave-function! right?) Also, I am looking for the simplest answer possible as to whether or not a brain and universe are considered quantum systems. I think they are, but would like to get an acknowledgement on this. And if they are both considered quantum systems, they can QM Interact with one another! right? And can I say that the brain is a sub-quantum system to the universe system. Obviously, this is all conditional upon them being quantum systems. Thank you for this! All the time I thought that I was bugging all of you with my simple questions and lack of basic knowledge. Also, my ego does not bruise a lot as I have too little of it. Sorry, last quote "Joigus has answered you" was not the right quote. I was refering to studiot indicating my open mindedness

You often say in your posts that you are not totally satisfied!!! Can you subtantiate?

I will take this as a yes! the universe interact's with the system and vice versa Here is what I understand: An interference pattern on the back plate when light goes through both slits, even when there is an unplugged detector between slit screen and back plate No inteference pattern on the back plate when light goes through only one slit, or a detector positioned between slit screen and back plate that is in the "on" position and whether or not it is registering This is what I got from above posts and information gleaned from other sources. Note: I am a generalist seeking to understand the essential of QM and possible remifications with other science disciplines. Patience with me is imperative. The benefit of helping me out may be to enable you to seek out the essence of QM and present it in a way understandable to almost anyone. Also, many words you use have a certain meaning that are obvious to you, but not to me. I will get use to it. I am in the early semantic stage of my quest for knowledge.

Interact or reveal information on path? a functioning detector not registering is interacting, but not revealing information; unless it is revealing it to the universe??? the pattern still disapears. Again, I am trying to determine the line when the pattern disapears and when it does not! thank you for your patience with me!

Please substantiate I am still having difficutly with what interacts with what! If I have a detector functioning without collecting data, then there is interaction and the interference pattern disapears! And if I place a non-detector obtject instead, do I get an interference pattern? A meaurement has not been made! or am I again wrong on the definition of a term measurement whereby measurement does not mean an actual measurement. Also, is the non-detector object considered a quantum system, and if so, then the pattern disapears? or not? Please substantiate! when does it and when does it not! So brain is a quantum system! right? I seems obvious, but I have been wrong so much, that I need a confirmation! I will also push the boundary, be very contentious and claim that where is consciousnes in the brain has not yet been determined. Leaving open that it might be outside. From Studiot's book exerpt: is it still a valid statement

I am starting to get a bit of a better handle on all of this, but still very-very far from general unserstanding. QM math is solid (no surprise there); how it works is also solid (no surprise there also), but I sense more ambiguity on what it all means. Am I right? Also, a more technical question: Can the brain be a quantum system able to interact with other quantum systems? Base on some of Joigus earlier comments, I believe so Lastly, collapse, interaction and decoherence are all the same?

Quite correct its zero point energy of the vacuum that I meant and I have a lot of reading to do to comprehend it

Thanks for all of this. It is much more than I expected. I get the some-most of it, but have to read and re-read to fully understand. I will try and get my hands on the Wilczek book. Finally, If the above statement is still valid, this is still magic to a neophyte like me. Also, zero-point energy, non-locality, tunneling etc. (if I understand correctly) are, as well, magic to someone like me.

Yes! Also understood your explanation removing the “magic”.

Where is consciousness in the brain; no yet found it. Also, Penrose and Radin, for example, still play the game. By the way, I am very grateful of being able to have such conversations; i know that I am a bit off the beat and espouse radical ideas; but thanks all of you very much!

I was once one of them that misinterpreted words like the observer effect to be just that; this showed my weak science background in QM; however, I am still puzzled by the Roger Penrose, von Neumann, Wigner, Wheeler, Stapp and Kafatos of the world who espouse such aspect of the theory. Founder of the theory (Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Plank, JOrdan, Pauli and Dirac) also seemed to edge their bets toward a role of consciousness in QM. Also, Studiot's text provided above says: “By observing the world, we participate in making it”. I am unaware of the author's name And, finally, Dean Rarin’s five signa experimentation, although “quirky”, seems to show a very weak effect of consciousness in the double-slit experiment. If this line of experimentation pans out and I am not sure it will, then the question remains open.

Wish to continue our conversation. I am confused, because some see a role for consciousness in quantum mechanics and I see none.