From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!news.bbn.com!news.bbn.com!aboulang Thu Feb 20 15:21:07 EST 1992
Article 3770 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!news.bbn.com!news.bbn.com!aboulang
>From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Date: 15 Feb 92 19:43:36
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <ABOULANG.92Feb15194336@icarus.bbn.com>
References: <jbaxter.697533284@adelphi> <406@tdatirv.UUCP>
	<65812@netnews.upenn.edu> <413@tdatirv.UUCP> <66142@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: aboulanger@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: icarus.bbn.com
In-reply-to: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu's message of 14 Feb 92 15:08:21 GMT




In article <66142@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:


   The point is, perhaps wave function collapse did occur at the device,
   or perhaps it didn't.  In the latter case, the device goes into a QM
   superposition of states--Schroedinger's feline effect--and it is only
   the human who finally looks at the device that causes wave function
   collapse.  There is no way for their experiment to tell the difference.

   The mathematics is the same in both cases.  The experimental physics is
   too.  The only difference is so far an interpretative one.


There has been some recent experimental work on QM measurement that
indicate that the extremal position of conscious-driven wavefunction
collapse is not workable (machine driven watch pot experiment). Here
is a copy of a posting from sci.physics:

****************************************************************
To: jbaez@banach.mit.edu, dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu, aboulanger@BBN.COM
Subject: QM measurment refs
>From: aboulang@BBN.COM
Sender: aboulang@BBN.COM
Reply-to: aboulanger@BBN.COM
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 91 17:53:44 EST
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

In-reply-to: jbaez@banach.mit.edu's message of 27 Dec 91 20:41:43 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Consciousness, quantum theory, and quantum pharmacology
Reply-to: aboulanger@bbn.com
References: <1991Dec26.112830.1817670@locus.com> <1991Dec27.004250.9816@galois.mit.edu>
	<ABOULANG.91Dec27090631@pilsner.bbn.com>
	<1991Dec27.204143.13033@galois.mit.edu>
 
In article <1991Dec27.204143.13033@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@banach.mit.edu
(John C. Baez) writes:


   I'm not dead yet - and more sadly still, neither is this position I'm opposed
   to.  While all those "in the know" may now find the connection between
   consciousness and wavefunction collapse undefensible, so much has been
   written about "quantum mechanics and consciousness" that it's a dead
   horse well worth beating.

   I would be interested to hear more about the various new experimental
   tests you so tantalizingly allude to.

  D Ring writes:

  >I think you can rest in peace now on the issue of consciousness-driven
  >elements in QM measurement. The recent positive results of the watch-pot
  >effect by non-human mechanical observers seems to throw this
  >extremal position out the window. It is interesting to see the
  >interplay of current experimental capabilities (penning traps, optical
  >molasses, etc) and advances in QM measurement theory.

  Perhaps you could summarize for those of us who are stuck out here in the 
  boonies.
 
Ok. I am a bit frustrated because I remember seeing a recent review
article on the impact of new experimental technology on QM and I can
not recall where. In mulling over my papers on this topic, 1985 seems
to be about when things began to happen. In its place I offer a couple
of refs:

"Watching a Laser Hot-Pot", News and Views, Nature Vol 344 (5 April,
1991), 493-494 describes the work of W. Itano et al, (Phys Rev A 41
2291-2300, 1990) at NIST on the quantum Zeno (or watch pot) effect.
The experiment was to inhibit the decay or trapped ions in a Penning?
(Nature blurb is nonspecific) trap using a a pulsed laser as a probe.

An upper limit on any nonlinear term in QM was tested using a Penning
trap with data run at NIST in 1985 (looks like it is linear so far):

See "Does Quantum Mechanics have Nonlinear Terms?", Physics Today,
October 1989, 20-21
and
"Is Quantum Mechanics Linear?", News and Views, Nature Vol 341 (19 Oct
1989), 571-572


Some blurbs on a conference by the NY Acadamy of Sciences, "New
Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory", Jan 21-24, 1986:

"Demonstrating Single Photon Interference", Research News, Science, 14
Feb 1986, 671-672.

"Testing Superposition in Quantum Mechanics", Research News, Science,
Vol 231, (21 March 1986), 1370-1372

More single atom refs:

"Single Atom Masers and the Quantum Nature of Light", News and Views,
Nature Vol 326 (26 March 1987), 329

"The Virtues of Single Atoms", News and Views Nature Vol 318 (7 Nov
1985), 11

"Quantum Jumps in a Single Atom", part of Physics News in 1986 section,
Physics Today, Jan 1987, 23-24.

T Erber in a monograph that as far as I know is unpublished, used the
1985 NIST data to look for evidence of QM being pseudo-random as
opposed to random. Their results for pseudo-randomness were negative.


Two particle:

"Two Particle Interferometry", News and Views, Nature Vol 347 (4th
October 1990), 429-430.


Other:

"Laser Cooled Atoms Cooperate", News and Views, Nature Vol 344, 5th
April 1990, 490-491

"Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics", Serge Haroche and Danial Kleppner,
Physics Today, January 1989, 24-30

Experimental work  on quantum chaos also deals with QM measurement
issues. See the month's Scientific American.


A review article on Experimental QM:

"Experimental Quantum Mechanics", T Heppenheimer, Mosiac, Vol 17, No
3, (Fall), 1986, 19-27




Regards,

Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com



