Joined: June 2006
|Which is essentially what I said. I will turn the question around. Why do you think the Penrose OR Interpretation is NOT an Copenhagen derivative?|
The Orch OR takes OR and adds the implication of consciousness. TIQM is not equivalent to Orch OR. However, TIQM is similar the basic Penrose quantum interpretation (just "OR"), IMO.
That answers my question; I don't dispute that OR is Copenhagen, but it seems to me that Copenhagen and TIQM interpret the reality of the wavefunction and the role of the observer much differently. From Cramer's page, they agree on most of the interpretations up until then (commuting observables, etc.).
|I consider Penrose's OR to be a Copenhagen derivitative because Penrose's "Objective Reduction" serves the same purpose as Copenhagen's "Waveform Collapse" and is generally the same thing. However, while Copenhagen left fuzzy the possibility that the waveform of an object collapsed into an actual particleform of the object. That was fine for photons and, possibly, electrons. But for 60 atom molecules (Bucky Balls) it became too much of a stretch for getting matter from non-matter.|
I don't think it's a stretch, considering that the deBroglie wavelength (the molecular mass is about 750 amu or 1.25e-24 kg) is still on the order of the size of the molecule. If the slit widths were proper, I'd expect it to exhibit interference.
|It looks like the main the elements I need for the Third Choice are here. John G. Cramer is saying quantum effects are interconnection through space and time. DNA and microtubules can be interconnected quantum computers just as easily under TIQM as under Penrose's OR. It looks like TIQM doesn't have a decoherence timeout like Penrose's OR.|
If you take one step beyond Cramer's theory, and do some experiments, you know that you will get a decoherence time-out. You can fire up an NMR experiment and couple different atoms within C60 or an organic molecule; they will decohere like everything else.
|From the link...|
"The TI avoids the conceptual problems implicit in this experiment by eliminating any SV collapse which occurs at some definite instant... Instead it employs an atemporal four-space description implicit in the transaction model..."
It looks like TIQM will allow things to remain in superposition as long as necessary.
I understand Penrose's OR interpretation better. If you want to think of things in TIQM terms, you will have to explain to me the fundamental differences you see that invalidates what I have been saying.
But we know things don't stay coherent "as long as necessary", that would pretty much invalidate NMR and statistical mechanics. It would really be interesting if they could find something analogous to quantum error correction in tubulins, I think that would seal it for me. Unfortunately, this all looks great on paper, but I'd rather see some experiments.