Consciousness & Quantum Physics SCHRODINGER BESCHRIJVEN DICHTE DOOS KWANTUM FYSISHE BESCHRIJVING WAT HEET DAT TE MAKEN MET DE RELARIE TUSSEN C EN FYSICA> ALS DIE DOOS OPEN GAAT DAN NEEM JE DOOD OF LEVEN WAAR SOMMIGEN EBBEN DAARIN EEN FUNCTIONELE ROL VAN HET BEWUSTZIJN GEPONEERD ALS JE EEM METING VERICHT ZOU ER WAT GEBEUREM GELUKKIG GEDACHTEN EXPERIMENT METAFYSICA ZO U WILT WAT WE OP DE UVA GEPROBEERD HEBBEN IS DIT EXPERIMENT UIT TE VOEREN VAB META -> ECHTE FYSICA . Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam TU Delft, dec. 16, 2010

Overzicht Het meetprobleem: Wat is een meting? Klassiek vs Quantum Ineenstorten toestandsvector Twee benaderingen Bewustzijn-QP ORCH-OR Schrodingers Kat? De radicaal subjectieve benadering Experiment van Hall (1977) Experimenten UvA (2002-heden)

Consider the following classical situation What is a measurement? Consider the following classical situation sattelite So what is a measurement. This seems to be a trivial question and indeed in classical newtonian physics it is generally believed that this is an act which returns the value off the measured variable. For instance if we have two masses which attract eachother for instance if they have oppositie charge, then these masses will move according to equatios of movement. Here we see a simulat6ion of their behaviour. Suppose the variable of interest is the distance between the masses. At any point in time we can ‘measure’ this variable. It has a precise value. However if we look at the corresponding quantum system then things become somewhat vague. The energy is quantized and so the small particle can not continuously ‘fall’ towards the large mass. Earth

Classical Measurement Classical Physics Measurement at t= 3 R Yields a precise value of location R time Newton So the classical measurment yieldes a precise value which is an objective reflection of the state just before the measurement.

Measurement problem? Classical Physics Measurement at t= 3 Yields a precise value of location R time Newton Energy is quantized -> jumps R r1 Quantum Physics r2 R described by Statevector giving the probabilities for r1 and r2 Schrodinger

Measurement problem! Bohr: Einstein interpreted this as follows: System is described as vector in statespace P(r1) 1 T=1 0.8 T=3 0.4 0.6 Collapse of state vector 0.2 1 P(r2) Bohr: This ‘collapse’ of the statevector happens at measurement. Einstein interpreted this as follows: At the measurement the real situation that already existed locally is revealed. Measurement is just a gain in knowledge. QP is incomplete

THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY 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. 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. Bell 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 iIncorrectt 1. Consciousness of first observer collapses the state before second observation. Maybe 2. Final Observer (brain) is sensitive for difference collapsed and non collapsed state 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

Results split for condition (preobserved and not-preobserved)

Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis What Peak Preobs-Obs(MuV) T (df=29) Prob. N100 0.350 0.66 0.52 P200 -0.09 -0.18 0.86 N300 -0.04 -0.08 0.93 P350 -0.54 -1.17 0.25 N400 0.098 0.80 P100 -0.16 -0.67 0.50 N160 -0.152 -0.84 0.41 N200 -0.956 -3.93 0.0005

Conclusions study 1 Copenhagen interpretation supported 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!

Visual pre-observation for Replication set up Alpha source GM detector Count down clock EEG amplifiers Trigger-in delay Audio-beep Final Observer Visual pre-observation for ~ 50% of the events Computer Pre Observer

4 clusters of electrodes Results averaged over 4 conditions (classical-quantum, preobserved- not preobserved) 4 clusters of electrodes

Only marginal pre-observation effect But…………

An effect of source of events (Quantum vs Classic)

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

Website: www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/ 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 Assumption that ‘brain-producing-consciousness’ is a large-scale coherent receiver thus according to Price: Restores Time-symmetry Weighted by a coherence measure As I argues before Physical formalisms S1 = f(t) S2 = f(-t) S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2

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) The design was the same as in most presentiment studies. We used 8 meditats with more than 5 years of experience mostly form the mindfulness tradition. They did two sessions, one while meditating, one while not meditating in the scanner. There were 8 controls matched in age and gender. Th controls did only one session. During these sessions the subjects were exposed to 64 randomly selected pitures of emotional or neutral nature. Each 16 seconds a picture was presented for two seconds, All meditators were trained to meditatie in the hostile environment of the scanner while lying down with open eyes.

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 The analysis consists of two parts. A spatial analysis and a temporal analysis. To find regions in the brain where something might be hapenning we looked at the contrast between the responses of meditiators and controls irrespecitve of the type of stimulus. Once we had found these regions we compared the bold signal BEFORE the emtional and before the neutral stimulus.

Results Spatial 36 regions show significant different responses (picture shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs non-meditating) Here wre 36 regions that we found were showing significant differences in BOLD response. We will report on these in a separate paper. For each of these 36 regions we analyzed the timecourse preceding the three type of stimulus for the different groups of subjects. This gives the following table. Most regions are associated with attentional proceses

Results temporal (all regions)

Number of anticipatory peaks We determined the largest anticipatory peak comparing the three types of stimuli in the 8 seconds preceding the stimulus. If everything is noise one would expect that for each of the three stimuli type there is an equal probability that the largest peak is before that stimulus. However theas can be seen from the row all conditions there were significantly lower number of largest peaks before the neutral stmuli. So we confirmed a presetment effect. The predicition that meditators showed more of this also was cofirmed as can be seen by comparing the ratio between emotion and netral largest peaks for meditators and controls. However something extremely interesting came also out of this graph

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)