Jeff,

It is my understanding that something existing in the past historical data base is not the same as that information existing in PMR as present information. That is as someone knowing something, perhaps the number of cans of beer in the fridge or how many trees stood in a clump or whether detectors worked and the results, and then simply forgetting with no need for recorded data destruction, takes that information out of the present PMR and puts it back into the realm of probability where absolute consistency need no longer be maintained. These are all situations which Tom has commented on. This applies to quantum physics experimentation just as well as to whether you will find a beer in the fridge when you want one.

Ted

For me one of "traps" is my programming knowledge, it sometimes pushes wrong assumptions on me.

For example, in a real computer game the world is not based on probabilities. If programmers and designers create a tree in a wood, then it will be there always, even if no-one ever needs information about that tree. The tree won't be rendered visually, but the data will always be there.

That's a major difference from ToE virtual simulation model, where everything is uncertain until the information is requested and comes into our PMR. Now I am wondering, is there any way to implement a similar solution in a computer game, it would be great optimization I guess - keep the information in the database only if it has been "experienced" by some entity. When some piece of information loses all the pointers (memories) to it, delete it - and we got free space. Really efficient.

There still are some game situations which could be compared to the fallen tree example. In some games if you kill someone, there are traces left for some time (stains of blood, broken objects etc.). Now when you leave that room and then return, the room is fresh and in complete order again. Those effects were simulated locally, the server doesn't keep information about it. So this is a result of two kinds of simulations going on (server side and client side), it's really different from ToE VR. And for some programmers like me this could become another trap to misunderstand some things.

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Thanks Jonathan, Randy and Ted for answering.I appreciate your responses.Believe me,I understand what you all are saying.Language does get in the way because we communicate with words-symbols with shared meaning that we tend to associate with an objective reality.I really am with you all on the subjective reality bus.But to keep my question on track I'll first respond to Jonathan specifically because I think he may get the gist of what I'm trying to communicate.I hope you guys will read too. (Randy believe me,I am not deluded into believing I'm an expert on the DS.I just find it very fascinating and worthy of reading about.)





Yes! I think you are seeing what I mean.I admit that I'm not good at communicating my thoughts,sorry for that. When you wrote "OTOH- the gathered data would sugest a particle-like result on the plate" ...this is what I'm trying to suggest. I totally get the idea that it's not really 'out there' in an objective world as we say here,and I know that it is 'rendered' only when an observer 'looks'.

But I think that ,in the particular DS thought experiment in which the 'which path' data from a slit detector is destroyed and nobody has looked at it, the data would still be available when one looks at the photographic plate with the sum of all the 'particles' that hit it.I think that when one would finally 'look' , at that moment,for that observer it would be rendered to show a pattern consistent with 'particle' behavior.

This is because we say that the "data has been collected" for the slits.We say that it is available to look at or destroy.(It is assumed that the recording medium icon ,in the consciousness of the observer, would accurately symbolize the which path info if they were to choose to look.)But why would this not be true for the final detector?This is my question.

Here's one explanation for why I think particle behavior would be rendered:
The (virtual) 'backwall' or 'screen' detector would have collected data by this time too because the experimental run would be long over, the quantum states of the 'particles' would have 'collapsed' by then.If this were not true then there would not be a need to lengthen one of the arms in certain twin photon experiments 'in' PMR ....

So I'll try a hypothetical guys,just assume it's all virtual.

The following is of course impossible for alot of reasons,but I want to exaggerate what I think should happen according to my limited understanding.This a condition in which I think maybe the DS thought experiment might happen as we say it does here:

Photons are fired at a DS apparatus.
Which path data is recorded and saved from the slits.
The final detection screen is far in outer space.
You wait for a long time,BUT,while you wait the (virtual) photons are still 'traveling'.

1.You don't look and destroy the record .
Photons are finally detected.
When the results reach your 'light cone' you learn that an interference pattern was found.

2.You look and learn 'which path' ,then destroy or don't destroy.Or don't look but you keep
the recording.
Photons are finally detected.
The results reveal particle-like behavior.

Do you all see what I'm getting at ? if you didn't have the 'distance' and 'time' for the quantum state in the above senario then I think it would be like saying the following:


You own a master copy of a recording.You haven't listened but it's data is available to you if you want to listen.
You copy it to a CD.
You remove tracks from the master copy or destroy it.
When you listen to your CD the tracks are gone.

Can this happen? No,because there's a difference between the conditions involved with 'macroscale' objects of our perception 'in' PMR and 'quantum scale' objects of our perception 'in' PMR .As information 'in' PMR propagates,it becomes 'entangled' with, or 'decoheres' with, other 'objects' and scales up to where we can believe that they act 'classical'. The classical rules can't explain the quantum;but the quantum can explain the 'classical' as I understand. However,the quantum would fall under the rule set for PMR.

The final detector is not measuring one particle at a time, but is just measuring the light pattern, which does nothing to inform PMR of it's particle essence?

if you were measuring and looking at the screen, particle by particle, the particle essence would be brought into PMR conciousness, and interference would be broken?

or is there something about which slit which is essential to breaking the interference?

I thought the essence of which slit was to reveal it's particle nature, but perhaps it is the knowledge of which slit, rather than the knowledge of it's particle nature, which makes it render as a particle?

reworded, I thought which slit was a proxy for revealing particle-arity, but now i see that this is not correct

You need to know which slit, to know where to render the particle in the non-interference pattern

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Isn't this the illusion moment where the problem begins? It seems to me, the data is not 'recorded' anywhere at all, there is no need for this data to exist in our PMR (yet). Only when the slit data is explicitly requested by us (from a file or sensors, whatever), then "which path" data comes into our PMR in the form to match our expectations.

Shortly: the information enters our PMR not through the slit detectors (they are virtual), but through our consciousness. Slit detection data just pushes the probability for us to 'find' that particle. Quantum eraser isn't 'erasing' the information (information has not entered PMR, detectors are virtual). Quantum eraser resets the probability back where it was before.

If 'the photon' 'travels really long way to the backwall', then while 'it is in its way', we have a decision to make - to let the slit data to affect the probability of a 'particle behavior' or not.

If we did not act fast enough and did not 'erase' 'which path' info before the moment when we observed the backwall, we'll get a particle spot on the backwall. Not because the information about 'which path' exists in our PMR (it does not), but because there is a really high probability for it to give certain results when we request it. Now it is too late to erase 'which path', and when we look at 'which path' info later, it will be rendered to match the probability and our expectations.

But here comes a tricky thought: what if we look at the 'which path' info ten years later and have no records about the backwall results anymore and everyone in the world has forgotten it? It might be rendered in any way (slit A or slit B), whatever the probability comes.

We might even have a 'backwards causality' issue here: let's say, we take a half of closed envelopes with slit data, for which the corresponding backwall data is lost (or messed up) and we say: 'I want to have more 'slit A' results in this bunch'... and it will happen? We did not influence the 'photon' in the past to go through 'slit A', we just shifted the probability for A envelopes to appear in our bunch now, in our time.

Now thinking about the CD. A copy of the master might get blank only if:
- no-one in our PMR knows, if this CD we are holding now, has tracks on it or not,
and
- even we ourselves have forgotten it, and we haven't even marked that CD copy with any special label, so maybe it is empty.
If we _did_ put a label on it, then the chance for it to be empty is much smaller. But it is possible, and then we might say: "Oh, I put a label on it, but obviously I forgot to do the recording ..." It happens. A 'nudge' to go to a friend and ask him if he has a copy somewhere :)



Yes, that's also how I tend to think about it now. Because our 'knowledge of it's particle nature' seems more like our belief. It's a particle if we request it to be so, and it happens that the Big Computer doesn't have any objections to our request, it does not break any rules, and so "here you go, have your beloved particle".

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Yes, I'd say it this way:
It gets rendered as a particle due to you - even only potentially - knowing which way it went.

@Jeff
So, me writing my trail of thoughts down instead of just the result is a good thing in the end.
If you look back you'll see that I added: ... and also the predicted outcome ...
to the "OTOH statement" you quoted.


Isn't that what Tom's TOE says?
Isn't that what the theory on QM says, too?

If there is data from which the "which path" information could be deduced then particle-behaviour would be the observed result.

They thought that the (physical) act of (physical) measurement itself disturbs the experiment and alters the result.

But there is the case with the detectors still on, but not recording - resulting in interference too.

You look, and there it is. You don't, nothing needs to be there.
You can't even know whether there is something while you are not looking for that something.
But everytime you do look, something is there - out of the probable possibilities.

It is not the act of measurement as a physical act.
You can refine it as much as you want - in order to "not disturb" some state.
It is the availability of information due to you requesting it, by "measuring" it.

The DCQE is showing this - no physical influence due to measurement in this particular experiment.

It is information, algorithms, data.
That is what we can see - whether we understand or not.
We can't really get to terms with it while still having the proposition of objective reality with cause and effect as we know it.



This is not equivalent to what you said before and with what you contrast it.

How do you know what is on the master-copy if you have not looked or listened to eighter it or the CD created from it?
You don't!
You can't remove individual tracks without knowing they where there.
You can destroy the whole master - but then you never even knew if and what was on it - or on the CD.
You would not even know that tracks where missing.
If you still feel you miss a track on your CD, it must have been missing from the master it was created from.
It could happen in this case!
...well, nothing would actually "happen", because you would never even know whether it did or not...

Something like it did "happen", kinda ... Toms interview with Sceptico ;)
as if it never happened ...

IMHO this is how I think it should be.I'll back up this assertion it in a minute when I address a part of Jonathan's post below.

For me I think the backward causality problem is solved by understanding that nothing is actualized between conciousness engagement events, ie looking

what was likely to happen plus intent plus random plus nudging all happen at the same delta(t) of the computers assessment of what to render

There is the appearance of backward causality based on the illusion that unwitnessed events unfold linearly

..

but it actually is a particle, particle-arity being fixed, to the extent that anything is...

and it is the perception of the physical proof of it's location at which slit that breaks interference?

I think the word measurement is too ambiguous pedagogically...as it is not specific regarding mechanical measurement, recording or perception by conciousness.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

I have to be quick I have to go to work:

There is a case of 'detectors on but not recording' and it does show 'particle like' behavior.

You can put 'quarter wave plates' at the slits ,or even at home you can put polarizers. The QWPs don't record information and you can't access anything on them.Yet when they are in place interference is destroyed unless you scramble the 'which way mark' before it's detected. So it's more like the totality of the experiment is under consideration.It seems to be about what can possibly be known...even in your relative future.

Watch this video.Then tell me,if you destroy a QWP in a lab,or slit polarizer at home -after- a 'photon' has 'passed' through it and been 'detected' finally(this doesn't really happen,but seems to retroactively when you look) then you look at the screen,will you see an interference pattern?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxHc6OqB7U

Yes, I agree with that. What we assume to be a 'causality of measurement' ("hey, that photon already went through a slit, so we should have it as a particle now, no matter if we 'erase' info before we see the backwall, or we don't") is not true. We should think about it as a 'causality of information' - only at the moment when we receive the backwall result, "the system" decides, what will this information be. Is there a chance for us to find out the 'which way' info in the future? If there is, then probability shifts to 'particle through a certain slot' case. And because of information causality, there is also no other way than to show the same information in 'which path' data, when we request it later.
Essentially, 'which path' is decided not when the photon seemingly goes through a slit, but at the moment, when we observe the results (backwall or slit data) and depending on the availability (or probable availability) of information.

We might try to "cheat the system" by saying before the experiment: 'I promise, I'll destroy the slit data after I see the backwall results. Now, give me interference even when I am not using the eraser, please.' We might even keep our promise later, but this won't work, "the system" does not know, if we keep our promise or not. We have a free will to lie, so the chance is still high that we'll peek into the slit data.

P.S. I still feel a newbie, so what I say here, is just my current viewpoint. Some moments might be not correct, as Ted already have pointed me some serious flaws in my previous posts (thanks, Ted). I really tried harder to find my way through, and yesterday evening something "clicked" in my mind and some things turned a bit upside down, so I hope this time I am closer to understanding how this double-slit thing fits in ToE.

_________________
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Isn't the whole point of the double slit experiment to present evidence of the particle wave duality by presenting a photon the opportunity to go through one of the slits or both or both of the slits? Humor me if need be please and thank you in advance.

If so then the quantum eraser is an experiment to present evidence for the VR (nonphysical data based) nature of Reality?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

A pattern will only emerge from many photons.
The pattern will reveal what was knowable about the "particles" that formed it.
Interference disappears if we can know which way.

If we would not know whether the polarizer was there or not, it would be interference.
Since we know it was there, consistency requires "particles"
Destroying the tool will not undo things done with it.

midix has put it very good IMO!


Not really, as far as I know.
The experiment was done to settle the argument whether light was a wave or a particle.
Sometimes light behaves like a wave, sometimes as like particles.
First it seemed to be a wave. Which need a medium. Which is known to be not there in vacuum. Which lead to other problems.
And is still a mystery.
Then the same experiment done with electrons, which where "known" to be particles, showed wave-like behaviour.
The experiment was refined to detect which slit a particle went through, and it was discovered that looking somehow seemed to change the wave into the stream of particles that where expected.

The quantum eraser was conceived to get rid of the supposed effect the physical act of measurement seemed to have.
What it showed is: it is not the physical act, but the gaining or not gaining of information which way some "particle" went.

BTW
A little late, I know:
Thanks for welcoming me! ;)

Not sure if you agree with me,but I agree with what you wrote.You said it in alot fewer words than I could.This is how things seems to work in my understanding. "Destroying the tool will not undo things done with it." ..Yes! PMR 'macroscale' electronic equipment,recording devices,materials,and detectors are known to work in consistent ways at our coarse grain (fractal) level of perception.They consistently reveal information to us if we access them.It would be a major anomaly if we had polarizing material at two slits and after many 'photons' had 'passed' ,we were to end with an interference pattern.(not say that anomalies don't happen.)

Let me try more like your style:
We know that polarizing material or QWPs have an effect that rotates a 'photon's' polarization according to the PMR rule set.

If such a thing was known to be in the path of the slit,we can know 'which path' in potential.
After many 'photons' have collected on the screen in such a situation, particle-like 'paths' are revealed.

This is consistent with the history that polarizing material or QWPs were there and we know what they do under the rules.An experimenter would have known them to be there because DS experiments don't just pop into existence.Someone's avatar put them there.( The same logic should apply to a recording no? )

The material or QWP doesn't 'collaspe' anything,but at the same time there is no 'which path' information available from them, in and of themselves.They can give us data in a broader relational context of the experimental set up ,which requires consciousness,time and objects of our perception that interact under consistent rules.

So,whether we look;or don't look at data from a hypothetical slit detector recording doesn't seem like it would make a difference to me judging from what happens in a DS with QWPs or polarizers. Unless,the data can be made unavailable again to our coarse level of perception (scrambled)before the (virtual) screen collects it's data. [This could be a really long path (outer space!) or maybe one of those Mach-Zenhder interferometer 'racetrack' things where the photons keep going around and around.]

About my crappy CD analogy:

You could set up a microphone and recorder in a room with objects that would be highly probable to fall and make a noise.Balance something precariously?

Go away from earshot.Then return blindfolded and retrieve the recording remaining ignorant to the outcome.

Copy the recording then destroy the master.

Repeat many times so that it is highly probable based on what we know about the behavior of objects in PMR,that the object(s) fell and made noise to be recorded.

Listen to the CDs or burn them onto one maybe.

If the tapes turned out to be all blank then that would be a major anomaly I think.I also think that 'macroscopic' measuring devices are in a similar situation.

This is off the top of my head,I could be wrong...

There seems to be a problem. You want to better understand something.
But it seems I'm unable to understand what it is.
There is nothing really in what you wrote to which I'd object.
To me, you are speculating about something. I just can't figure out what it is ;)
Sorry.

It is not as if I had all the answers.
I just have come to trust the concept of a virtual vs. objective reality and to me it seems everything falls into place when applying it.