Transcript Does Consciousness Collapse the Wave Function?

Consciousness & Quantum
Physics
.
Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam
TU Delft, dec. 16, 2010
Overzicht
 Het


meetprobleem: Wat is een meting?
Klassiek vs Quantum
Ineenstorten toestandsvector
 Twee


ORCH-OR
Schrodingers Kat?
 De


benaderingen Bewustzijn-QP
radicaal subjectieve benadering
Experiment van Hall (1977)
Experimenten UvA (2002-heden)
What is a measurement?
Consider the following classical situation
sattelite
Earth
Classical Measurement
Classical Physics
R
Measurement at t= 3
time
Newton
Yields a precise value of location R
Measurement problem?
Classical Physics
R
Measurement at t= 3
time
Newton
Yields a precise value of location R
R
r1
Quantum Physics
Energy is quantized -> jumps
r2
R described by
giving the probabilities for r1 and r2
Schrodinger
Measurement problem!
P(r1)
System is described as vector in statespace
1
T=1
0.8
T=3
0.4
Collapse of state vector
0.2
0.6
1
P(r2)
Bohr:
Einstein interpreted this as follows:
At
the‘collapse’
measurement
real situation
that at
already
existed
This
of the the
statevector
happens
measurement.
locally is revealed.
Measurement is just a gain in knowledge. QP is incomplete
Einstein was wrong
BELL (1964) showed by an argument of only 2 pages that
ALL local realistic theories would give different results
for certain specific experiments which were difficult to
perform.
Bell
However Aspect et al (1981) eventually did the crucial
experiment and …..
showed It is not the case that the particle had a specific
position before measurement but it gets the position
upon measurement: God plays dice! QP is complete.
THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY
So what constitutes a
measurement is really
important
Definition: A measurement is something
what you do with a measurement
device….
Usable in the daily practice of physics
But incorrect
(von Neumann)
The Measurement Problem
‘solutions’
 Objective
Reduction (Penrose)
 Many World solution (Everett)
 Deterministic solution (Bohm)
 Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW)
 Radical
subjective reduction (Wigner, Stapp)
Two serious approaches
 Collapse

causes Consciousness
Hameroff & Penrose: ORCH OR model
• Objective Reduction
 Consciousness



causes Collapse
Wigner, von Neumann, Stapp
 Subjective Reduction
Schrödinger: Cat Thought experiment
Hall, Shimony, Bierman: Real experiment
Radical Subjective Solution

…. The reduction of the state vector is a physical
event which occurs only when there is an interaction
between the physical measuring apparatus and the
psyche of some observer…..
from Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy, and Shimony, A.
(1977). Wave-packet reduction as a medium of
communication. Foundations of Physics 7 (1977),
759-767.
Note that the radical solution is associated with Schrödinger’s Cat.
Hall et al experiment
Assumptions
1. Consciousness of first observer
collapses the state before second
observation.
iIncorrectt
2. Final Observer (brain) is
sensitive for difference collapsed
and non collapsed state
Maybe
Inconsistentt
3. Final Observer can report this
Improvements in replications

HALL et al 1977


Obs1 -> Obs2 delay
few microseconds
Dependent variable:
conscious verbal
report

Amsterdam 2002-2007


Delay 1000 msecs
Dependent variable: brain
signals before final
observer is conscious of
event.
Amsterdam original set-up
Amsterdam original set-up
Dependent variable:
brainwaves of final
observer
Pseudorandom switch between conditions Pre-observed - not pre-observed
Results pooled over condition
allfc
[ µV]
N10 0
-5
N30 0
N40 0
N20
0
P3 50
P40
P200
5
-2 00
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
allp
[ µV]
-5
N160 N200
0
P100
5
-2 00
-100
0
100
200
Results split for condition
(preobserved and not-preobserved)
allfc ParentOther
[ µV]
-5
0
5
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
allp ParentOther
[ µV]
-5
0
5
-200
-100
Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis
What
Peak
PreobsT (df=29)
Obs(MuV)
Prob.
N100
P200
N300
P350
0.350
-0.09
-0.04
-0.54
0.66
-0.18
-0.08
-1.17
0.52
0.86
0.93
0.25
N400
P100
N160
0.098
-0.16
-0.152
0.25
-0.67
-0.84
0.80
0.50
0.41
N200
-0.956
-3.93
0.0005
Conclusions study 1
Bohr

Copenhagen interpretation supported

God plays dice

And …Consciousness stands outside of
quantum physics (dualism) or must be
considered a ‘hidden variable’ with non local
aspects

But wait a minute: Strong claims need strong
evidence….. So study 2!
Replication set up
Alpha source
GM detector
Count down clock
EEG amplifiers
Trigger-in
delay
Audio-beep
Visual pre-observation for
~ 50% of the events
Pre Observer
Computer
Final Observer
Results averaged over 4 conditions (classicalquantum, preobserved- not preobserved)
4 clusters of electrodes
Only marginal preobservation effect
But…………
TABLE 4. Differences of
Occipital
Parietal
FrontoCentral
Frontal
Peaks
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
An
P300
A EP peak amp litudes from the quantum and classic source.
Classic
Q uantum
Classic Ğ
t (df=49) p (2-tailed)
Q uantum
-0.287
-0.182
-0.105
-0.503
0.617
0.485
0.642
-0.157
-0.808
0.423
-0.554
-0.416
-0.138
-0.683
0.498
5.725
5.074
0.651
2.697
0.010
-6.956
-7.279
0.323
1.200
0.236
-0.834
-1.090
0.256
1.096
0.278
-0.033
-0.066
0.033
0.230
0.819
0.165
0.322
-0.157
-1.052
0.298
-0.307
-0.258
-0.049
-0.447
0.657
1.503
1.126
0.377
2.457
0.018
-3.700
-3.718
0.018
-0.068
0.946
-0.237
-0.047
-0.190
-1.311
0.196
-0.508
-0.413
-0.095
-0.515
0.609
0.006
0.070
-0.064
-0.352
0.726
-0.659
-0.695
0.036
0.178
0.859
5.612
5.309
0.303
1.242
0.220
-5.477
-5.979
0.502
2.301
0.026
0.633
0.238
0.395
1.984
0.053
-1.513
-1.488
-0.025
-0.143
0.887
-0.587
-0.742
0.155
0.687
0.495
-0.888
-1.028
0.140
0.640
0.525
7.633
7.765
-0.132
-0.774
0.443
-5.652of source
-5.538 of events
-0.114 (Quantum
-0.454 vs Classic)
0.652
effect
1.536
1.204
0.332
1.508
0.138
Conclusions study 2

Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize
is much smaller.


Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does
not convey enough information.
There is a difference between quantum and
classical triggered auditory evoked potentials

Could that be because the ‘classical decay time
distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay
time distribution?
Study 3
More information to pre-observer
- I.e. was the source quantum or classic
Control of ‘decay-times’ distribution in all
conditions.
Amsterdam 3
Preliminary Results
study 3
Quantum vs Classical ‘explained’
• Only marginal pre-observation effect
• refined S/N weighted analysis required
•
Preliminary Conclusion

The support for the idea that ‘consciousness
collapses the statevector’ is weak and needs
further experimental support.

However, it could be that the assumptions
underlying this approach are invalid.

Meta-fysica -> Zinnige onderzoeksvragen
Thanks to:
Stephen Whitmarsh
Roger Penrose
Dennis Dieks
and
the audience
Am I
In or Out
Website: www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/
CIRTS:
Physics can accommodate psi
 Most
physical formalisms are time-symmetric
(Newtonian, EM)
 The solution S=f(-t) is never observed
 Wheeler Feynman (1945) wondered why we
only see S=f(t).
 Price (1996) reinterpreted Wheeler & Feynman
Huw Price’s re-interpretation
 Time’s
Arrow (1996, Oxford Press,p. 71)
 Why time-assymmetry:

….. … involves an imbalance between transmitters
and receivers: large-scale sources of coherent
radiation are common, but large receivers, or sinks,
of coherent radiation are unknown……
Basic Assumption in CIRTS
that ‘brain-producingconsciousness’ is a large-scale coherent receiver
thus according to Price:
 Restores Time-symmetry
 Assumption

Weighted by a coherence measure
Physical
formalisms
S1 = f(t)
S2 = f(-t)
S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2
Signal = f(t) + ÔCohere nceÕ* f(-t)
Predictions of the theory
 1.
What happens after, happens before
• 2. Larger effect with more coherent brains
Testing the predictions (1)
 What

happens after, happens before
Double stimulus presentiment
Testing the predictions (2)
 Does

a coherent brain show more psi?
Bial grant 34-03
•Effect of Meditation on presentiment (fmri study)
Design
8 Experienced meditators
 2 sessions: Med and NonMed
 8 Matched controls

1 session: C
 64 random pictures (neutral, erotic, violent)
 16 seconds interval, 2 seconds exposure
 All meditators trained
 Replication of fmri study Bierman & Scholte (2002)

Analysis procedure


Find interesting regions by comparing bold RESPONSES
between
 Med <->NonMed (direct effect of meditation)
 NonMed<-> C (long term effects of meditation)
Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE the emotional
with the signals BEFORE the neutral
Results Spatial

36 regions show significant different responses (picture
shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs nonmeditating)
Most regions are associated with attentional proceses
Results temporal (all regions)
Number of anticipatory peaks
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Neutral
Erotic
Violent
Controls
Med
NonMed
Elusiveness ‘explained’
Grandfather paradox is formally identical to precognition-action paradox
Elusiveness ‘explained’

Nature doesn’t allow paradoxes


See also: Hawking’s chronology protection
Psi information should never become so strong that it can be
used to change the source of it. (Just like the time traveler
should not act in such a way as to change his/her own source)
Conclusion
Radical subjective solution of the MP:
Consciousness is a-physical (dualism)
CIRTS (Conciousness induced restoration of
time-symmetry) :
Consciousness is a special physical
system (monism)