The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics

Written by Sam Vaknin

Arguablyrepparttar most intractable philosophical question attached to Quantum Mechanics (QM) is that of Measurement. The accepted (a.k.a. Copenhagen) Interpretation of QM says thatrepparttar 127616 very act of sentient measurement determinesrepparttar 127617 outcome ofrepparttar 127618 measurement inrepparttar 127619 quantum (microcosmic) realm. The wave function (which describesrepparttar 127620 co-existing, superpositioned, states ofrepparttar 127621 system) "collapses" following an act of measurement.

It seems that just by knowingrepparttar 127622 results of a measurement we determine its outcome, determinerepparttar 127623 state ofrepparttar 127624 system and, by implication,repparttar 127625 state ofrepparttar 127626 Universe as a whole. This notion is so counter-intuitive that it fostered a raging debate which has been on going for more than 7 decades now.

But, can we turnrepparttar 127627 question (and, inevitably,repparttar 127628 answer) on its head? Is itrepparttar 127629 measurement that brings aboutrepparttar 127630 collapse – or, maybe, we are capable of measuring only collapsed results? Maybe our very ability to measure, to design measurement methods and instrumentation, to conceptualize and formalizerepparttar 127631 act of measurement and so on – are thus limited and "designed" as to yield onlyrepparttar 127632 "collapsible" solutions ofrepparttar 127633 wave function which are macrocosmically stable and "objective" (known asrepparttar 127634 "pointer states")?

Most measurements are indirect - they tallyrepparttar 127635 effects ofrepparttar 127636 system on a minute segment of its environment. Wojciech Zurek and others proved (that even partial and roundabout measurements are sufficient to induce einselection (or environment-induced superselection). In other words, evenrepparttar 127637 most rudimentary act of measurement is likely to probe pointer states.

Superpositions are notoriously unstable. Even inrepparttar 127638 quantum realm they last an infinitesimal moment of time. Our measurement apparatus is not sufficiently sensitive to capture superpositions. By contrast, collapsed (or pointer) states are relatively stable and lasting and, thus, can be observed and measured. This is why we measure only collapsed states.

But in which sense (excluding their longevity) are collapsed states measurable, what makes them so? Collapse events are not necessarilyrepparttar 127639 most highly probable – some of them are associated with low probabilities, yet they still they occur and are measured.

By definition,repparttar 127640 more probable states tend to occur and be measured more often (the wave function collapses more frequently into high probability states). But this does not excluderepparttar 127641 less probable states ofrepparttar 127642 quantum system from materializing upon measurement.

Pointer states are carefully "selected" for some purpose, within a certain pattern and in a certain sequence. What could that purpose be? Probably,repparttar 127643 extension and enhancement of order inrepparttar 127644 Universe. That this is so can be easily substantiated byrepparttar 127645 fact that it is so. Order increases allrepparttar 127646 time.

The anthropocentric (and anthropic) view ofrepparttar 127647 Copenhagen Interpretation (conscious, intelligent observers determinerepparttar 127648 outcomes of measurements inrepparttar 127649 quantum realm) associates humans with negentropy (the decrease of entropy andrepparttar 127650 increase of order).

This is not to say that entropy cannot increase locally (and order decreased or low energy states attained). But it is to say that low energy states and local entropy increases are perturbations and that overall order inrepparttar 127651 Universe tends to increase even as local pockets of disorder are created. The overall increase of order inrepparttar 127652 Universe should be introduced, therefore, as a constraint into any QM formalism.

Yet, surely we cannot attribute an inevitable and invariable increase in order to each and every measurement (collapse). To say that a given collapse event contributed to an increase in order (as an extensive parameter) inrepparttar 127653 Universe – we must assumerepparttar 127654 existence of some "Grand Design" within which this statement would make sense.

Such a Grand Design (a mechanism) must be able to gaugerepparttar 127655 level of orderliness at any given moment (for instance, before and afterrepparttar 127656 collapse). It must have "at its disposal" sensors of increasing or decreasing local and nonlocal order. Human observers are such order-sensitive instruments.

Still, even assuming that quantum states are naturally selected for their robustness and stability (in other words, for their orderliness), how doesrepparttar 127657 quantum system "know" aboutrepparttar 127658 Grand Design and about its place within it? How does it "know" to selectrepparttar 127659 pointer states time an again? How doesrepparttar 127660 quantum realm give rise torepparttar 127661 world as we know it - objective, stable, certain, robust, predictable, and intuitive?

Ifrepparttar 127662 quantum system has no a-priori "awareness" of how it fits into an ever more ordered Universe – how isrepparttar 127663 information transferred fromrepparttar 127664 Universe torepparttar 127665 entangled quantum system and measurement system atrepparttar 127666 moment of measurement?

Such information must be communicated superluminally (at a speed greater thanrepparttar 127667 speed of light). Quantum "decisions" are instantaneous and simultaneous – whilerepparttar 127668 information aboutrepparttar 127669 quantum system's environment emanates from near and far.

But, what arerepparttar 127670 transmission and reception mechanisms and channels? Which isrepparttar 127671 receiver, where isrepparttar 127672 transmitter, what isrepparttar 127673 form ofrepparttar 127674 information, what is its carrier (we will probably have to postulate yet another particle to account for this last one...)?

Alternative Energy Series Cheap, Clean Energy Everywhere Now!

Written by Ed Howes

I had sincerely hoped to profit fromrepparttar things I have learned about energy overrepparttar 127615 past 20 years. Much time has passed without progress. I never found anyone to help or encourage me to bring these not so new technologies to market, so here I will offer them torepparttar 127616 world and see if anyone might find value in free information.

The combustion process 19th Century engineering gave us, I call slow burn. Overrepparttar 127617 past century this technology has been retained because it provided great profits to Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Banking and Big Government, through fuel taxes; a very big conspiracy to rip off global consumers. All have agreed onrepparttar 127618 desirability of using more than twenty timesrepparttar 127619 fossil fuel needed for inferior performance that poisonsrepparttar 127620 world’s air, soil and water. Indeed, it may be demonstrated inrepparttar 127621 near future that liquid fuel technology has squandered fifty times more fuel than needed per developed horsepower.

Fast burn technology, developed by Canadian, Charles Pogue, inrepparttar 127622 late nineteen forties, bought and suppressed by automakers, is a fifty five year old solution.

Charles had easily solvable power problems with his hot vapor, fast burn, gasoline fuel system. But he refused to addressrepparttar 127623 performance problem in his quest to achieve 300 mile per gallon fuel economy, after successfully surpassing 200 miles per gallon with a 1937 Ford V-8 sedan. This at a time when fuel was relatively cheap in North America and few would trade power for economy. I solved these problems in a simple fashion and never built a conversion to demonstraterepparttar 127624 solutions. This was due partly to fear ofrepparttar 127625 opposition and an unreliable sense of market timing.

The old slow burn technology makes just enough vapor in a combustion chamber to lightrepparttar 127626 mixture with a spark or compression heat in a diesel engine. Atrepparttar 127627 same time heat begins to vaporize liquid fuel to a combustible state, pressures build to great heights and prevent rapid vaporization ofrepparttar 127628 remaining fuel. In addition,repparttar 127629 unvaporized fuel absorbs great amounts of heat that cannot contribute to combustion pressure, which creates power. This rich or fuel heavy mixture serves to lower and regulaterepparttar 127630 peak and average combustion temperatures throughout an unnecessarily long combustion cycle. This process uses a surplus of fuel that passes out to atmosphere unburned. The catalytic converter wasrepparttar 127631 industry response to cleaning this unburned fuel.

Fast burn technology does justrepparttar 127632 opposite of slow burn. In a slow burn four stroke combustion engine there is fire inrepparttar 127633 cylinder for more than one complete crankshaft revolution. That is, somewhere between 360 and 420 degrees of rotation. The power stroke is a 180 degree event and if we use a bicycle crank for comparison, we can see that most ofrepparttar 127634 power is delivered in half ofrepparttar 127635 full stroke, centered onrepparttar 127636 mid point. That is, cylinder pressure createsrepparttar 127637 greatest torque whenrepparttar 127638 piston is half way throughrepparttar 127639 power stroke. The engine will easily provide allrepparttar 127640 power needed for cruise and moderate acceleration if there is only enough fuel available to make cylinder pressure fifteen or twenty degrees before and afterrepparttar 127641 midpoint ofrepparttar 127642 power stroke; a controlled power stroke of thirty to forty degrees. This is controlled by metering fuel so all fuel is burned up in an oxygen rich environment andrepparttar 127643 emissions will now be hot air and trace amounts of oxides of nitrogen.

Most children learn at a young age, they can pass their finger through a candle flame without pain or injury by moving their finger throughrepparttar 127644 flame quickly. Such isrepparttar 127645 secret of fast burn technology. Temperatures that would melt engine parts like valves and pistons if maintained for four hundred degrees of crankshaft rotation are no problem ifrepparttar 127646 burn cycle only lasts for a maximum of one hundred degrees inrepparttar 127647 case of maximum power. Performance enthusiasts looking for that extra 50 horsepower by adding fuel, arerepparttar 127648 ones most likely to melt parts. For these people - racers, hot rodders; engines likely to melt at high power outputs and too much fuel can and should be assembled with readily available thermal barrier coatings to prevent melt downs.

About ten years ago I read thatrepparttar 127649 slow burn performance engine developed peak cylinder pressure at 15 to 18 degrees after top dead center, early inrepparttar 127650 power stroke. What if we could develop just twice that amount of cylinder pressure, three times as late inrepparttar 127651 power stroke? That is, at 45 - 54 degrees after top dead center. The answer is we would have more than three timesrepparttar 127652 power atrepparttar 127653 point of greatest mechanical advantage inrepparttar 127654 power stroke as we do withrepparttar 127655 bicycle crank inrepparttar 127656 middle of its down stroke.

When there is absolutely no liquid fuel in our air/fuel mixture,repparttar 127657 rate of combustion is many times greater than when there is an abundance of liquid fuel, as inrepparttar 127658 19th century slow burn technology. This means we can supply spark much later and burn allrepparttar 127659 fuel in thirty degrees or less crankshaft rotation. An engine that can burn all its fuel in twenty degrees of crankshaft rotation will deliver twenty timesrepparttar 127660 fuel economy of an engine that does not burn all its fuel in 400 degrees of rotation. Althoughrepparttar 127661 fast burn engine might generate peak temperatures and cylinder pressures three times higher than a slow burn engine,repparttar 127662 burn time is so dramatically shortened thatrepparttar 127663 engine will actually run cooler than slow burn engines. Smaller cooling systems will dorepparttar 127664 job at lower water temperatures, likerepparttar 127665 160 degrees of old days.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use