TED Conversations

Murshid Markan

Alcatel-Lucent

This conversation is closed.

How randomness of a photon particle in a two slit experiment could explain the phenomena of Consciousness and Decision-Making

If we stress on the Thomas young's double-slit experiment in which we ought to see that the photon beam when passed through the double slit we observe the wave nature of the photon particle as we get a scattered bands pattern on the wall unlike the single-slit where we observe the particle nature of the photon as it projects a single band pattern, in this experiment we can see that the behavior of the photon as a particle or a wave is random and so is its position after passing the double slit wall. Now i would like to relate this to the consciousness, when we face a situation in our life, how we perceive or react is as random as the photon. So i would like to ask people out in TED related to the consciousness studies is that, if we work on the principles of "Orch-Or" theory that says that the quantum superposition exists till the difference in the space-time curvatures is significant. so when we think with our conscious mind firstly how we can relate different quantum state as different reactions by a human mind and how can we get a clarity in decision making when the decisions are in space-time curvatures very close to each other. Secondly, the "Copenhagen experiment" explanation of the superposition failing under observation would hinder our research of certainty of the photon's position, How can we resolve the randomness of the particle and correspondingly in my case the absolute truth (perfect decision for a situation) for the conscious human mind. An experiment by Roger Penrose FELIX states that an electron is present at two different location and by using mirrors we can get a single position of this experiment. But, How we humans can tackle the randomness of our conscious mind. What we need to practice to reduce this randomness in our mind. How we can have a definite answer for a problem in our mind. How we humans can be certain in our thoughts.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 1 2012: and how do we know that?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 1 2012: i can name you like hundreds of things that might have random elements, including a toss of a coin. but you said it is a fact. facts are not proven by lack of counterexample. your task is to prove. until than, this is just a unbacked claim.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 1 2012: and how do we know that? you just repeated your claim.

          as of now, it is an open question whether randomness exists in the universe or not. but most physicists subscribe to the idea that it does. so if you know otherwise, time to tell.
      • Jun 3 2012: Hi, Krisztián,
        what we call 'rendom' is really a lack of information or a matter of ignorance. It is synonymous with :
        we don't know, it is outside the scope of our models."
        "... If one knew the initial force of one's thumb on the coin, its interaction with the air molecules, its reaction to the force of gravity, etc., the path of the coin would be predetermined from a unique solution of its equation of motion. Thus, one would know in advance if it would land head or tail."
        But we do not know all of these details and in our ignorance it looks like random.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: at least you believe so. but physics does not. as of now, the question is open. but most physicists believe that quantum processes are truly random, not just apparently random.
      • Jun 3 2012: What you've said is also true :)
        The classical coin-toss and the quantum double slit interference
        experiments are explained using the involvement of the observer.
        The results are unpredictable, but doesn't mean that "quantum processes are truly random "
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: if something is widely believed among physicists, the opposite of that hardly can be called a fact, or something we just need to "accept". prove it.
      • Jun 4 2012: Krisztian !
        Again, you are right, but not quite right :)
        Bell's theorem disproved the idea of locality. What Einstein called ''spooky action at a distance '' appeared to be a feature of nature or cosmos
        ( order).
        Random walk in quantum physics turned to be a new type of phenomenon called 'quantum walk'.
        If you are interested you may check out here
        http://thefutureofthings.com/news/7596/random-walk-in-quantum-physics.html
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: don't look at the consequences. the bell theorem has a very direct fundamental meaning. it says quantum theory can not be random only because it is a statistical description of reality. there can be no possible reality behind quantum theory that is fully nonrandom. that is the bell theorem.

          if we subscribe to that, we should conclude that our world is indeed random. it is its nature.

          however, arthur fine presented an argument that the measurements supporting bell's theorem might be flawed. if they indeed are, the bell theorem might be false, and the door is reopened to non-random models of the world.
      • Jun 4 2012: I don't understand why we should wait till somebody open/close/reopen any door to our world we inhabit and can observe and experience !
        As it was said: we test ourselves ! It means, that we know intuitively what we need to be explained rationally.
        "As above, so below" was said not by rational mind and not for rational mind, you can sense truth here and science could be very helpful backing it up .
        What can you say about this mind blowing video ?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeoE1arF0I&feature=related
        It reminds me the zen koan : is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving.

        Cheers
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: people can't open doors. facts can. observations, measurements can. one can believe that bananas are purple. but a wise man accepts that it is yellow. so far, our experiments told us that the world is random. fine pointed out that we might interpret the data wrongly. for that reason, the video does not blow my mind, since i believe that quantum processes are nonrandom, but rather deterministic. i'm fine-ian, if you will. they fail to mention in the video that the detection rate of individual photons are like 5% max. so it is perfectly possible that we only detect cases with certain properties, selected by the arrangement of the experiment. it is possible that 50% behaved like particles, 50% behaved like waves, but the particles are non-detectable by such an arrangement. we don't know why or how, but we need near-100% detection rate to rule biased sampling out.

          no, we can not sense truth. we can, on a level, sense our own mental frames. but we surely can't feel how objects work in the universe. the universe continues to show us how weird it is. in the universe, time is dependent on speed, particles can be two places at the same time, mindless processes create structure and things like that. our universe is queer.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html
      • Jun 8 2012: Hi, Krisztian !
        I don' reject your views :)
        but
        "...only logic and observations can tell true and false apart. so you can believe, if you want, that no reasoning can have any effect on me."

        SOCRATES : What Plato is about to say is false.

        PLATO : Socrates has spoken truly.

        It is self-referential conundrum that shows the limitation of logic and reasoning.
        There is no 'true' or 'false', but different descriptions of the same thing on different levels of understanding ,like Newton's gravity as a force and Einstein's curvature of spacetime.
        The question remains though : what are the force carriers ? So, we are dealing with effect, having no idea about the cause. To suggest that effect appeared from randomness would contradict logic, everyday experience and yes , intuition.

        "...no, we can not sense truth."

        I can :)
        And I am a perfectly ordinary human being, I can't know the truth, for you can't stop being hungry smelling the food. But such moments deeply colour the thinking and bring some clarity, the correspondences become obvious, and you start to see how everything, I do mean ,everything is connected. The very idea of randomness kisses you goodbye :).
        BTW, no contradiction with science here, for randomness in science is defined as 'not useful information', hence it is not absence of order but absence of recognition.
        How I can prove 'order' ?
        - Quantum entanglement.( maybe:) Cause and effect is one thing, they are bound together and separated by by spacetime, which is 'samsara' illusion of the mind. Squeezed between cause and effect in no real space and time in its own illusion mind has invented randomness , funny, isn't it ?

        And let's not call it 'debate', i don't state anything, we are just thinking on line and share our thoughts and I am grateful for your sharing.
        Thanks !
    • Jun 4 2012: Measurements are subjective ! I mean they depend on the frame of reference. A datum is born when wave function of 'knowing' is collapsed in favour of a particle, mind traps it in time hence makes it real. It is interpreted and becomes the 'fact', there is no such thing as an uninterpreted ' objective' fact.

      OK, Krisztian, as it was said many times: everyone is on his own path.
      Good luck with yours !
      Thanks for the conversation !
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 7 2012: there are two sides of this coin. in a debate, it is not enough to point out that the opponent don't want to accept your views. you are just as much reject his. only logic and observations can tell true and false apart. so you can believe, if you want, that no reasoning can have any effect on me. but you could at least try. so far, i saw no reasoning, only claims.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 7 2012: easy questions:

          1. have no idea.

          2. have no idea, but i'm almost sure the question does not make sense

          however. as a buddhist, i'm aware that there is a thing called samsara. for simplicity, we can call it "world". samsara is the thing we see if we look around. does randomness exist in samsara? i don't know. it might exist. it might not. there are people who dedicated their lives to study samsara. they claim that things look like there is randomness in it. it is not sure.

          however. you claimed that you know there is no randomness. so it is a good time for you to prove that. are you up to it?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: in short, if i don't see it on my own, you can not show it to me. in even shorter, you can not show it. that's my point. you can only list a lot of sources that also don't contain any attempt to prove, they only assert. and a thousand assertions does not suddenly become an argument.

          and one more note: i don't say there is no cause and effect. i say you can not prove that there is no randomness in the world. see the difference?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 8 2012: Hi, Chris !
          It so resonates with my understanding (!!!), though I don't know a half of what you do !
          Thank you very much !!!
          P.S. I think, science is changing and changing fast. "queer" and "random" are just middle terms between 'objectivity ' and 'reverence' , 'wonder' .
          We are approaching the Age of Reason. I truly believe so :)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.