Quantum People - continued

People are not particles. The behaviour of the subject of our experiment cannot be described by a few simple equations, whereas that of a particle can. We believe this because we are people too.

The difficulty with quantum stuff is that we are trying to measure the properties of things by using those same things. It's like trying to deduce the movements of the players on a football field by listening to the crowd. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the sequence of groans and cheers in relation to goals, but those equations would not represent the complex reality of the game.

So our subject is faced with choices. There are two doors: they are the only ways out. Which to use - or maybe wander around the walls looking for an alternative - or sit cross legged and chant - or do anything at all other than choose a door.

From the way our experiment is constructed, any behaviour other than passing through a door and crossing our line of sensors is recorded as a delay. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the relationship of delay to signal, but those equations could not represent the complex reality of the subject's mind.

That said, most people most of the time in such a situation would head through an apparently random choice of door. They would proceed to cross our sensor line. We would deduce, from the data alone, that they travelled in a straight line at a certain velocity; but reality is more complex. Just as a minority of subjects would plump down and chant rather than choose a door, some would meander through, others rush. Some will imagine a collision and veer off course. Some may feel their way around the wall first. Some may even go back into the room through the other door.

If only a few people are thus perverse, as good scientists we would necessarily dismiss the signal from their behaviour as mere 'noise'. To include all such oddities in our equations would make them too complex and unwieldy. So long as our results are repeatable (and ideally useful) the anomalies can be ignored.

[aside] There's a short story here, of the experiment being performed, the measurements being taken, the results being collated, and the experimenters leaving, congratulating themselves for success. Then the technicians arrive to dismantle the experiment. But the room is not silent: a whispering, a shuffling, a sense of presence. On go the lights, and there are four people still there; one in the lotus position, softly chanting; two undressed in the glow after coitus; and one ashen faced slumped in a damp corner, panicked by the dark.

Quantum People - a thought experiment

I've just read Chapter 1 of Volume 3 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics (ISBN 0201021188) "Quantum Behaviour". Therein is described the definitive two-slit experiments that reveal the quantum weirdness of wave/particle duality.

A couple of thoughts struck me:

• 'particle' is a locality with specific properties; e.g. momentum
  
• 'wave' is a propagation; e.g. of energy or information.
  

Feynman's descriptions involve bullets and water ripples and electrons. Might people behave quantumly too?

Think of this: a large room full of people begins to fill with smoke. There are two exits close together in one wall. Outside it's pitch black. A line of sensors parallel to the wall but some distance from it allow us to detect when a person passes. (We shall assume these sensors have a cycle time adequate to the capture of all events, and that escapees do not jump on each others backs or trip etc..)

If only a single exit is open, we would expect to see a Bell curve in the sensor data: more people would go straight on than at an angle once they are through the exit. But if both are open, we would expect some of those that do leave the exits at an angle to collide and change course, giving us the classic interference pattern. So far, so obvious.

What happens if we run the experiment many times, but with only a single person in the smoke-filled room? If people are particle-like, we would expect a Bell curve, as for Feynman's bullets. But would we?

[to be continued]