How then is it on the quantum level that what we see is what we get? Albert Einstein paved the way in 1905 by embracing wave-particle duality. Earlier, Einstein described light as a stream of particles = photons. Later, he added a twist to the story in a paper introducing what he called special relativity. In this paper, Einstein treated light as a continuous field of waves and this suddenly appeared as a contradiction to his description of light as a stream of particles.
Though, this certainly posited a duality of the nature of life it did not deny what Einstein claimed earlier. However, this duality of light asserted a possible condition of agency. What does that mean? It means that if light is both, how or when is it one or the other; determining when it is one or the other became a matter of agency. Thomas Young's double-slit experiment allowed for this determination which essentially caused an intercessory condition of agency = observation.
In Young's experiment - observation, light travels away from a source as an electromagnetic wave. When it encounters the slits, it passes through and divides into two wave fronts. These wave fronts overlap and approach the screen. At the moment of impact, however, the entire wave field disappears 'collapses' and a photon appears. Quantum physicists often describe this by saying the spread-out wave "collapses" into a small point. This is only determined to be what happened through human observation - looking to see what happened.
For some people this suggests that a conscious person can collapse a wave function. However, for a physicist, an observer is anything that interacts with a system in a thermodynamically irreversible way. An observer is not a person, nor a conscious entity at all. It could even be considered light interacting with light. Now, for someone like myself, a sociologist, there still remains an interesting aspect that physicists seem to ignore. If they treat themselves as anything that interacts with a system ... what are they looking for or looking at all? There is no need to understand our interaction if we are just 'anything' interacting with a system in a thermodynamically irreversible way. And, even if it were reversible, the point being would be the same... which is that whatever we do consciously we do it in order to gain meaning... as a being of light, I seek to understand myself as a creation of light and my interaction with light, right?
What we see is what we get!
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And God said, "Let there be light,: and there was light." ~ John 1, Genesis 1.
if this question is a
bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate
about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave
function
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/
if this question is a
bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate
about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave
function
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/
No comments:
Post a Comment